liquidity_pulls

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that it is a paid service, returns 402 if unpaid, requires a funded wallet, and describes the event fields (pool, token, WETH/USDC amount). It does not contradict any annotations.

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 paragraph but packs essential information efficiently. It could be more structured (e.g., bullet points), but it is not overly 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?

No output schema, but the description explains return values (pool, token, removal amount) and covers payment, cross-checking, and parameter usage. It lacks detail on pagination or rate limiting, but given the tool's simplicity, it is fairly complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description merely restates parameter names and types ('POST { since?, limit?, dex?, minQuote? }') without adding deeper meaning or clarifying format beyond the schema.

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?

Description clearly states it provides liquidity-pull/rug alerts on Base for recently-launched DEX pools. It uses specific verbs and resources (Burn events, POST endpoint) and references cross-checking with token_safety, but does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like new_pairs.

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?

Description tells when to use (rug alerts), how to use (POST with parameters), and includes payment requirement ('Unpaid returns 402') and the need for a funded wallet. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives beyond token_safety.

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