analyze_liquidity

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the cost (0.005 USDC on Base) and the chain/venue scope, which is real value beyond the schema. However, it omits the read-only nature, latency, and error/failure behavior for an out-of-scope or non-Base token.

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?

Three compact sentences, all front-loaded with the resource, the venue scope, and the cost. Nothing is padded or repeated from the schema, and each sentence 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?

With a single, fully documented parameter and cost disclosed, the core invocation need is met. But with no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves the agent guessing at the return shape (depth figures, per-venue breakdown, status) and at whether it is read-only.

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 100% and there is only one parameter, so the schema already documents token_address fully (ERC-20 on Base, 0x..., 42 chars). The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, matching the baseline 3.

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 (queries) and resource (verifiable USD liquidity) and enumerates the exact venues covered (Aerodrome, Uniswap v3/v2, Clanker/Virtuals bonding curves) on Base Mainnet. An agent can readily distinguish this from rugshield_pre_swap_scan and check_honeypot.

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 line 'Prevents catastrophic trade slippage' implies a pre-trade context but never states explicitly when to call this versus the sibling tools (rugshield_pre_swap_scan, check_honeypot), nor does it name any alternative. Usage is implied rather than declared.

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