token_risk_snapshot

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

With no annotations, the description discloses that market depth is 'REAL' and measured by round-trip quotes (WETH -> token -> WETH) at two trade sizes, indicating it uses quotes rather than executing trades. It also explains the interpretation of high round-trip loss, adding behavioral context beyond a simple snapshot.

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, front-loaded with the tool's purpose, then adds the key measurement methodology and interpretation. Every sentence contributes meaningful 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 simple one-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description sufficiently outlines what it returns (metadata plus round-trip quotes at two sizes) and how to interpret it. It could specify the exact metadata fields or trade sizes, but these details are not essential for a basic understanding.

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 fully describes the single parameter 'token' as an ERC-20 token address on Base. The description repeats this context without adding syntax, format, or edge-case details, so it adds no additional semantic value beyond the 100% schema coverage.

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 it produces a liquidity risk snapshot for an ERC-20 on Base, using round-trip quotes to measure market depth. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing specifically on illiquidity risk rather than safety, approvals, or quote conversion.

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 implies use when assessing whether a token can be exited, noting high round-trip loss indicates thin/illiquid or high-fee markets. It provides context for when to use (risk assessment) but does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion criteria.

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