get_liquidity_events

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It successfully defines the semantic meaning of 'liquidity events' (splits, merges, redemptions), but fails to disclose operational traits like read-only status, pagination behavior beyond the schema default, auth requirements, or rate limit implications.

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?

Two efficient sentences with no redundancy. The first front-loads the core value (event types), while the second addresses filtering. Every word earns its place.

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 three simple parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the domain concept but lacks return value documentation. Since no output schema exists to clarify the structure of 'splits, merges, and redemptions' data, the description should ideally hint at the return format, which it does not.

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 coverage is 67% (two of three parameters have descriptions). The description maps 'market' to conditionId and 'user address' to address, aligning with the schema's filter intent, but does not compensate for the undocumented 'first' parameter (which controls result limit/pagination).

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 uses specific verbs ('Get') and clearly identifies the resource as 'splits, merges, and redemptions — the liquidity lifecycle events.' It provides domain-specific terminology that distinguishes it from generic activity or trade tools, though it does not explicitly contrast with similar siblings like get_market_lifecycle.

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 mentions filtering capability ('Filter by market or user address') but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_market_trades or get_recent_activity, nor does it state prerequisites or exclusion criteria.

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