get_price_impact

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

With no annotations to declare safety or side effects, the description must carry the full burden. It merely states 'calculate' without disclosing whether this is a read-only operation, what DEX or liquidity source is used, or any limitations. There is no mention of output format, accuracy, or potential network-specific behavior.

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 a single, direct sentence with no filler or redundant information. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity, though it could be slightly expanded to add context without becoming verbose.

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?

The description is incomplete for the tool's complexity. It lacks any explanation of what 'price impact' means in this context, whether it estimates the impact on a specific pool or aggregator, or what the return value looks like. With no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves critical information to the user, making it hard for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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 input schema has 100% coverage, providing descriptions for all parameters including token addresses and amount. The description adds minimal semantic value by using the phrase 'trade size' which maps to amountIn, but it doesn't clarify the role of network or how the parameters interact. Baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 calculates price impact for a given trade size, which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_swap_quote by focusing on the price impact metric, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar DEX tools.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_swap_quote or get_best_route. The description implies usage for estimating price impact but gives no context about selecting it over related tools, making it hard for an agent to know when it is the appropriate choice.

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