Get Token Liquidity

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

The description richly discloses behavior beyond the annotations: it explains failure modes, what null liquidity means, that 'unavailable' does not indicate zero liquidity, and what 'drained' implies for tradability. This is exactly the interpretive context an agent needs and goes well beyond the readOnlyHint/idempotentHint annotations.

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 compact but information-dense, with the core purpose front-loaded and status semantics following in a structured, readable sequence. Every sentence adds value by preventing a specific misinterpretation, so the length is justified and efficient.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity, full schema coverage, rich annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It covers the main data returned, the critical status field, edge cases, and the meaning of null values — everything an agent needs to correctly 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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add new parameter-level detail beyond the schema, but the schema already documents 'address' and 'chain_hint' sufficiently, including the fork-disambiguation purpose of chain_hint. No compensation is needed.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: "Liquidity snapshot for a token's primary trading pair," and lists concrete outputs such as price, 24h volume, pair count, and chains. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like find_new_hot_pools or assess_token_risk, which target discovery and risk assessment rather than current liquidity measurement.

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 clear operational guidance: check 'status' before trusting numbers, and interprets each status value so the agent knows how to act on 'unavailable', 'not_found', 'unpriced', and 'drained'. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when to prefer them, but it provides strong context for correct usage.

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