orderbook_slippage

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

The description discloses that the tool costs $0.005 via x402, which is relevant behavioral context. However, it does not mention failure modes, rate limits, or data freshness. With no annotations, it carries the burden but adds only one behavioral trait.

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 concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with purpose. The second sentence adds essential payment info. No wasted words, though could be slightly more structured.

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 tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains what it does and its cost. However, it lacks description of the return format or error handling, leaving some gaps.

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%, and the description adds value by explaining that the tool finds the cheapest venue for a given size. This goes beyond the schema's basic parameter descriptions, clarifying output context.

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 computes multi-venue execution cost/slippage for a given ticker and trade size, and identifies where the ticker is cheapest to execute. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like funding_arb or volume_24h, which deal with different financial metrics.

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 when needing execution cost across venues and mentions payment via x402, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. Agents must infer context from sibling tool names.

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