inspectUniswapPoolState

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered, but the description adds genuine value beyond them: the tool is paid ('Price: 0.010 USDC on Base') and it enumerates the returned audit metrics. It does not disclose auth/prerequisites or rate limits, and the 'MANDATORY SECURITY GATE' framing is overstated rather than informative.

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 all-caps 'MANDATORY SECURITY GATE' opener is hype rather than information, and the return metrics are stated twice ('tick liquidity depth, fee tier, price impact bps, and LP concentration rug-risk scores' then 'Base DEX pool liquidity, spot price & rug-risk audit'). The scope and cost are front-loaded, but the repetition and marketing tone cost clarity.

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 usefully enumerates what is returned and notes the per-call price, which an agent needs to decide whether to invoke it. However, the false Solana/wallet-analysis scope and lack of alternative routing leave it slightly short for a tool with so many adjacent siblings.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema; baseline is 3. The description mentions audit outputs but adds no syntax, format, or relationship detail for pool_or_token_address or quote_token beyond the 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?

States a specific verb and resource: audits Uniswap V3/V4 and Aerodrome liquidity pools on Base, and names the concrete metrics returned (tick liquidity depth, fee tier, price impact, rug-risk). This distinguishes it reasonably from siblings like inspectBaseToken or checkSmartContractHoneypot. The 'Solana' and 'analyzing wallet addresses' claims muddy an otherwise clear Base-DEX-pool purpose.

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?

Provides a when-to-use sentence ('auditing smart contracts, analyzing wallet addresses, or validating DEX liquidity'), but names no alternatives or exclusions despite many overlapping siblings (inspectBaseToken, checkSmartContractHoneypot). The guidance is also misleading, claiming scope on 'Base or Solana' when the schema is Base-only, and claiming wallet analysis which other tools perform.

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