get_liquidity

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention whether the operation is read-only, any side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or error behavior. Given the lack of annotations, this is a significant 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 two sentences and efficiently packs the tool's purpose and key output details without any redundant or promotional language. It is well-structured and easy to parse.

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?

The description outlines the nature of the return data (per-venue depth, TVL, best venue, share of total depth), which is helpful given the absence of an output schema. However, it omits details such as expected format, units, or any caveats about data freshness or availability, though the absence is not critical. Overall it provides sufficient context for basic usage.

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?

Both parameters are fully described in the schema. 'pair' specifies the format (SYM/SYM) with a concrete example and notes that either side may be a 0x address. 'chain' provides an explicit enum of allowed values and a default. The schema coverage is 100%.

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 clearly states the tool returns market depth and TVL for a trading pair, per venue, and explicitly lists the key outputs (pool depth, best venue, share of total depth). The verb 'get' and resource 'liquidity' are unambiguous, and it distinguishes itself from the many sibling tools that focus on a single venue or different metrics.

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 explains what the tool does but does not explicitly state when to choose it over similar siblings like 'get_pool_reserves' or 'get_best_venue'. It implies use for per-venue liquidity breakdowns, but this guidance is implicit rather than explicit, leaving room for ambiguity.

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