token_liquidity

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and largely meets it: it discloses the estimation methodology (constant product, conservative for concentrated liquidity), error behavior ('Errors with Not charged if no pool exists'), per-call cost ($0.008 USDC), and p99 latency (10000ms). It omits only read-only/permission semantics, which are implicit for a query tool.

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?

Information is front-loaded with the resource and output shape first, then caveats, error handling, and cost/latency. It is dense but every clause (methodology, error semantics, pricing) carries operational weight; sentence 1 is long but not padded.

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 3-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers return contents, estimation caveats, failure behavior, cost, and latency. An agent has everything needed to decide whether to call it and how to interpret the result.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining what sizes_usd actually produces (price impact per size, plus the largest trade at 1% and 5% impact), which the bare parameter description does not convey.

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 names a specific resource (pool depth and slippage for a token) and enumerates exactly what is returned: per-pool USD liquidity, price impact per size in sizes_usd, and the largest trade at 1% and 5% impact. This distinguishes it clearly from adjacent crypto tools like token_simulate or evm_balance.

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?

It states a clear use context: 'Use to size a trade or check if an exit is possible.' However, it does not name sibling alternatives (e.g. token_simulate, token_precheck) or give explicit when-not conditions, so routing still requires inference.

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