Flash-loan pools

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety and dynamic nature are covered. The description adds value by listing the returned fields (committed amount, live available liquidity, fee, per-loan cap, provider count), giving insight into the output. However, it does not describe pagination, result format, or potential authorization beyond annotations.

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 sentence that front-loads the core purpose and lists key output attributes. There is no extraneous information; every part is relevant and efficient.

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 simplicity (one parameter, no output schema) and annotations covering safety, the description provides essential return fields. However, it is ambiguous whether the output is a list of pools per token or a single pool, and it does not specify that it returns multiple tokens' data. Some operational detail is missing for full completeness.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description should explain the 'chain' parameter, but it only implies its necessity by mentioning 'on a chain.' It does not elaborate on the enum values or their effect. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond what the schema already shows.

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 returns per-token flash-loan liquidity details on a chain, listing specific fields. This distinguishes it from siblings like flash_quote, which likely provides a quote. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'Retrieve' or 'List,' slightly reducing clarity.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like flash_quote. It does not mention context, prerequisites, or whether it is for overview before executing a flash loan. This leaves the agent without operational direction.

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