sodax_get_volume

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description only needs to add behavioral context beyond safety. It mentions pagination via cursor and default format markdown, which is helpful, but does not describe response structure or data freshness.

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?

Two sentences, no wasted words. Front-loaded with purpose and essential constraints. Perfect for quick comprehension.

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?

With 15 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the primary filtering logic and pagination. It does not explain 'filled intents' or response format details, but the openWorldHint suggests the agent can infer needed knowledge. Complete enough for effective use.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by summarizing parameters and emphasizing the 'don't mix' constraint for block/time ranges, which is critical for correct usage. This goes beyond the schema's individual constraints.

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 gets solver volume data showing filled intents with filtering and pagination. It specifies required parameters (inputToken, outputToken) and optional filters, distinguishing it from sibling tools like sodax_get_intent which focus on individual intents.

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 provides clear usage guidance: requires inputToken and outputToken, optional filters for chain, solver, block range or time range, with explicit warning not to mix block and time ranges. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings, but the specificity of volume data makes it sufficiently clear.

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