Get HoodGrow trade price-impact estimate

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description adds crucial behavioral context: the data is from a 15-minute snapshot, not live; it's an estimate derived from reserves, not executable; there's a cost of $0.05 via x402 (free with API key); and it fails for unknown symbols. The likelyCrossesTick limitation is also disclosed, providing deep transparency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and uses multiple sentences to convey important nuances. It is a bit long (six sentences) but every sentence adds value, so it could be considered appropriately detailed rather than wasteful.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description names key return fields (bestPoolAddress, bestEffectivePrice, likelyCrossesTick) and covers errors, pricing, and data freshness. However, it does not fully specify the output structure (e.g., array shape or all fields), so it's slightly incomplete for an agent expecting a detailed response format.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema covers all parameters with clear descriptions (symbol, side, amountUsd). The description does not add new parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already states, so it stays at the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool computes price impact per Uniswap V3 pool for a token and identifies the best pool. It explicitly distinguishes itself from a multi-pool route ("not an optimal multi-pool route/split") and from live pricing ("not a quoted or executable price"), making it distinct from sibling tools like get_markets or get_ohlc.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides explicit guidance: it's for per-pool estimates only, not for multi-pool routing or executable prices. It also advises splitting into TWAP tranches when likelyCrossesTick is present, and warns it fails for unknown symbols. These when/when-not directives are clear and actionable.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.