Check route survival

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the operation is read-only, explains the blocking:true behavior and its meanings (NO_ROUTE, DANGEROUS, UNPRICEABLE), and explicitly states that vaults never screened return screened:false with no fabricated verdict. It also lists the output fields, providing transparency about what to expect.

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 three sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core question, then details the output and blocking semantics, and ends with a clear usage instruction. Every sentence contributes essential information.

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?

For a read-only tool with no output schema, the description provides a comprehensive picture: what it returns (verdict, USD in/out, fraction retained, path, time), the blocking interpretation, the screened:false case, and the timing (measured today). An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret results.

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 description coverage is 100% — both chainId and address have clear descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate per the rubric.

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: checking if a deposit into a vault can be exited at size today, returning a round-trip route screen with verdict and metrics. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on route survival rather than overall vault scoring or alerts, making its role unambiguous.

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 gives a strong usage directive: 'Call this BEFORE moving money,' indicating the appropriate timing. It also clarifies that it returns a daily screen, implying it should be used for current-day checks. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is specific enough that an agent can infer when to use it versus siblings like get_vault_score.

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