liquidity_depth

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses READ-ONLY, no wallet needed, and describes internal state reading. However, it does not cover error cases or permissions.

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 only two sentences plus a brief note, front-loaded with key purpose, and no unnecessary information. Every sentence adds value.

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 no output schema, the description explains what is returned (per-pool depth, health classification, max profitable trade size). It could detail output structure further, but is sufficient for a simple tool.

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%, but the description adds context: 'Measure how much USD can be traded before moving price by X%' clarifies impactPct, and 'Checks all pools for this token' adds meaning beyond schema.

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 measures USD trade amount before price moves by X%, reads V3 pool state, returns per-pool depth, health classification, and max profitable trade size. It is specific and distinguishes from siblings like swap_quote or mft_price.

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 usage for MfT arb pools and mentions it's read-only, but does not explicitly state when to use or not use compared to alternatives. No sibling differentiation is provided.

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