get_liquidity

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, but it only restates the purpose. It does not disclose what 'available liquidity' means, how it is calculated, whether it is a snapshot/real-time value, or any side effects. For a getter, this is a notable gap.

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 with no filler words. The core action and resource are front-loaded ('Get available liquidity in USD'), making it easy to scan.

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?

This is a simple one-parameter tool, but with no output schema and no annotations, the description should clarify what 'available liquidity' means or what the return value is. It only states the metric and unit, leaving uncertainty about the exact data returned.

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% ('Market ID' for market_id), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra semantic detail about the parameter format or source, but does not need to because the schema is sufficient.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('available liquidity in USD for a market'), which clearly states the tool's purpose. It distinguishes from siblings like get_current_price or get_orderbook by focusing on liquidity, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or scope.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus sibling tools such as get_orderbook or get_spread. The description implies a use case (need liquidity), but gives no explicit conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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