land_liquidity_quote

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

With no annotations, the description must carry all behavioral disclosure, and it does: it discloses the observed linear relationship and its limits, different quotes across pools, clamping of zero/negative values, HTTP 400 for non-numeric amounts, 0/0 for unknown pools, and the precedence trap when both amounts are supplied. It also states the tool reports the upstream quote unchanged, giving a clear behavioral contract.

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 essential purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and every subsequent sentence provides a distinct behavioral fact rather than filler. The description is long but earns its length with edge-case and empirical information, though it is a dense wall of text that would benefit from bullets or clearer separation of caveats.

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?

For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, this description covers a great deal: input options, the response carrying both quoted amounts, edge cases, and the one-input-wins trap. It is slightly incomplete only around what happens when neither amount is supplied and around the exact response shape, but overall an agent could call this correctly with high confidence.

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 0%, so the description compensates by explaining resource_amount and dec_amount are optional, describing the multiplicative relationship between them, and documenting the precedence trap. It does not define the exact token semantics of each field or the behavior when neither amount is supplied, but it adds substantial meaning beyond the bare JSON schema.

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 opening sentence names a specific action and target ('Get the best route... pool-specific quote from GET /land/liquidity/quote/{poolId}'), so the tool's core function is unmistakable. It is not a tautology and conveys more than the name. However, it never names a sibling tool or the exact conditions that separate this quote tool from the other land_liquidity_* endpoints, so it falls short of a 5.

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 implies the tool is for obtaining a pool-specific quote, and the rich behavioral notes tell the agent what to expect. But it contains no explicit 'use when...' / 'instead of...' guidance or mention of any alternative, so it does not actively route the agent among the many sibling liquidity tools.

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