get_dex_liquidity

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the tool returns 'Liquidity depth, top pools, and slippage estimates,' which gives some behavioral insight into outputs. However, it lacks critical details like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions. The 'Price: $0.20' hint suggests a paid service but doesn't clarify billing implications.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by Args and Returns sections. It's concise with no wasted sentences, though the 'Price: $0.20' line could be integrated more smoothly. Overall, it efficiently communicates key information in a compact format.

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 2 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but an output schema exists, the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose, parameters, and return types, but lacks behavioral details (e.g., safety, costs, errors). The output schema likely handles return values, reducing the burden, but gaps remain for a tool with financial implications.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by explaining 'token_address' as 'The token contract address (0x...)' and 'chain' with options 'ethereum, base, polygon, bsc,' which clarifies beyond the schema's generic titles. However, it doesn't cover all semantic nuances (e.g., format validation for addresses, default behavior for 'chain'). With 2 parameters and partial compensation, a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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's purpose: 'Get DEX liquidity analysis for a token across major exchanges.' It specifies the action ('Get'), resource ('DEX liquidity analysis'), and scope ('across major exchanges'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_token_metadata' or 'get_token_price', which reduces it from a perfect 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools (e.g., 'get_token_price' for price data instead of liquidity analysis). The only implicit context is the token address and chain parameters, but no explicit usage rules are given.

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