get_slippage

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses behavior: simulates against live reserves, reports price impact and fee separately, and explicitly states exclusions (gas, MEV, multi-hop). It does not explicitly state side effects (e.g., read-only), but the nature of a simulation query implies no destructive actions.

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 concise (two sentences) and dense with relevant information: purpose, simulation mechanics, output details (fee reported separately), and scope exclusions. Every sentence adds value without redundancy or fluff.

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 covers the essential aspects: what it returns (price impact and fee), scope (pool-level), and exclusions. It does not mention error handling or output format, but no output schema exists and the tool's simplicity allows this to be sufficient. The 'every venue' phrasing could be ambiguous, but overall it provides enough context for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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% (all parameters described). The description adds crucial context beyond the schema: it clarifies the relationship between amountIn and amountUsd ('Required unless amountIn is given instead — slippage is meaningless without a size'), making the parameter semantics clearer than the schema alone.

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's purpose: to calculate price impact for a specific trade size, distinguishing it from spot price. It specifies the resource (slippage/price impact) and action (simulates swaps), and sets expectations by noting it reports fee separately and excludes gas/MEV/multi-hop.

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 indicates when to use it (when spot price is insufficient for a specific trade size) and provides scope limitations (pool-level only, excludes gas/MEV/multi-hop). It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the context from sibling tools and the 'which a spot price cannot tell you' phrasing provides adequate guidance.

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