Get HoodGrow trade price-impact estimate

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, confirming this is a safe read. The description adds crucial context beyond annotations: it explains the estimate is derived from a snapshot (not live), may understate slippage for large trades, and can fail for unknown symbols. It also discloses pricing via x402, which is not in annotations, providing a complete behavioral profile.

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 a single block but front-loaded with the core functionality in the first sentence. Every sentence adds meaningful information: best-pool selection, limitations, tick-range accuracy, failure mode, data freshness, and pricing. No redundancy; it efficiently packs specifications without bloat.

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?

Given the moderate complexity (per-pool estimation, flags, freshness), the description covers all critical usage aspects: what it computes, how to interpret results (likelyCrossesTick), failure cases, data source, and pricing. With no output schema, the description preempts common questions about return format (bestPoolAddress, flags). It's complete for the tool's purpose.

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?

Schema covers 100% of parameters with clear descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds semantic context by explaining that amountUsd represents a 'USD-sized trade' and that side determines the flow (buy/sell). It also clarifies the interplay with the per-pool estimate, but since schema is already detailed, the description's contribution is modest but non-trivial, hence 4.

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 estimates price impact for a USD-sized trade across Uniswap V3 pools, and highlights the best pool selection. It distinguishes itself from potential route optimization and notes it's per-pool, not a multi-pool route. This differentiates it from sibling tools like get_markets or get_trades.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool (to get per-pool slippage estimates) and when not to (for optimal multi-pool routes). It also provides guidance on handling large trades: consider TWAP splitting if likelyCrossesTick is flagged. It notes the data is from a 15-minute snapshot, not live, which sets expectations for usage in live trading.

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