get_dex_spread

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden and does so well: it discloses cost, wallet requirement, and that it spends nothing without a funded wallet. It also enumerates the returned data, making side effects and behavior transparent.

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 dense run-on but packs all essential information up front (cost, purpose, parameters, wallet, alternatives). It is longer than necessary but organized in a natural flow from cost to functionality to requirements to alternatives, 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?

Given no output schema or annotations, the description thoroughly covers inputs, outputs, costs, prerequisites, and alternative tools. An agent has enough context to decide whether to call this tool and what to expect in return.

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 covers 100% of parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by providing example formats (WBNB/USDC) and clarifying that the first symbol is the USD-priceable side, and explaining fee tiers and omission behavior. Slightly redundant with schema but enhances usability.

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?

Clearly states it provides real-time cross-DEX price and spread for BSC across specific venues, plus best buy/sell venue, gross arbitrage spread, optimal trade size, liquidity, and block number. Explicitly contrasts with cheaper alternatives get_liquidity and find_arbitrage, distinguishing it from siblings.

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?

Explicitly notes it is paid ($0.01 USDC/call, no free tier), requires a funded wallet, and without one returns payment instructions and spends nothing. Directly tells when to use the free alternatives instead, giving clear when-to-use guidance.

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