get_liquidity_risk

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

Describes the analysis outputs: market classification, venue count, and flags for single-venue markets and wide spreads. It also clarifies it is liquidity depth analysis only, but does not describe any side effects or error behavior, which is acceptable for a read-only analysis.

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, focused sentence that conveys the tool's purpose and constraints without unnecessary detail. 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?

Provides enough context for an agent to decide when to use it, including exclusions. It lacks details on classification thresholds or return format, and does not explain what constitutes a wide spread, but these are not essential for correct selection.

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?

The schema already provides full coverage for both parameters (pair, chain with enum and default), so the description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since coverage is high and the description does not deepen parameter meaning.

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 action 'Pre-trade depth check' and resource 'pair', and explicitly distinguishes itself from contract audits and honeypot checks, making its purpose unambiguous. It also sets expectations by noting it is liquidity depth analysis only.

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?

Implies usage before trading, and clearly states what it is not ('NOT a contract audit and NOT a honeypot check'), which helps an agent avoid misusing it. However, it does not name alternative sibling tools for those excluded purposes, so the guidance is not fully explicit.

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