calculate_impermanent_loss

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It accurately describes the calculation and return format without misleading statements. It does not disclose assumptions or potential edge cases, but for a simple math tool, this is sufficient.

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 with two sentences: one defining the tool's purpose and output, and one suggesting a related resource. No superfluous content, front-loaded with essential information.

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 one-parameter calculation tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently covers what the tool does, the input, and the output format. It is complete given the tool's low complexity.

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 single parameter 'price_ratio_change' is fully described in the schema with a clear example. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, and with 100% schema coverage, a baseline of 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 calculates impermanent loss for a DeFi liquidity pool position given a price ratio change, and specifies the return format. It is specific and distinguishes from siblings by its unique topic.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The mention of 'see list_bundles for related calculators' implies context but does not specify alternatives or exclusions. Usage is implied by the tool's specific function.

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