Real tradeable depth vs TVL

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

Annotations already say readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint are true. The description adds useful behavioral context: it computes depth from live on-chain quotes across hub pools and warns that headline TVL routinely overstates fillable size. No contradiction with annotations, though it does not discuss rate limits, latency, or failure modes.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: metric definition, price impact thresholds, data sources, TVL caveat, intended usage, and exclusions. The main idea is front-loaded with 'ONE signal' and no filler is present.

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 read-only signal tool with an output schema, the description is complete: it explains what is measured, how, at what thresholds, from which sources, and what the tool does not do. The supported chains are covered by the schema enum, so nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 schema already documents address with a regex pattern and description, and chain has an enum with a default, so basic parameter meaning is visible. The description does not add parameter-specific guidance, such as how chain selection affects the quote aggregation or whether depth is per-chain or cross-chain. At 50% schema coverage, more compensation would have been useful.

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 states a specific, measurable purpose: 'how much can actually be traded' as the largest position filling within 1%/2%/5% price impact. It clearly names the resource (token liquidity/depth) and distinguishes itself from siblings like price_corroboration, honeypot_check, and token_report.

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?

It explicitly says 'Use for position sizing and slippage budgeting' and gives exclusions: 'Does NOT judge price honesty (use price_corroboration) or sellability (use honeypot_check); for all three at once use token_report.' This is model guidance for when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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