calculate_impermanent_loss

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not mention any behavioral traits such as idempotency, side effects, or authentication needs. As a pure calculation, it is likely safe, but the transparency is minimal without explicit statements.

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 at two sentences, with no unnecessary words. The placeholder return notation is slightly unclear but does not detract significantly. It efficiently conveys purpose and a reference for related tools.

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 the tool's simplicity, one parameter, and presence of an output schema, the description provides adequate context. It explains the trigger condition and references a bundle for related tools. The absence of return format details is mitigated by the output schema.

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 input schema with examples and constraints. The description only reiterates 'when price ratio changes,' adding no new semantic value beyond the schema, resulting in a baseline score.

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 calculates impermanent loss for a DeFi liquidity pool when price changes. It specifies the operation and condition, making the purpose evident. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other financial calculators, relying on the specific tool name.

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 a price ratio changes and references list_bundles for related crypto calculators. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or clear alternatives, leaving the agent to infer context.

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