liquidity_pulls

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: it monitors burn events, returns pool/token/amounts, is a paid service (402 for unpaid), and requires a funded wallet. This is transparent about cost and error condition.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with core purpose and parameter list, then output and payment info. It is concise and well-structured, though could separate output format more clearly.

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 no output schema and 4 parameters, the description covers purpose, parameters, output fields, cross-reference, and payment model. It lacks return format details but is sufficient for an agent to use effectively.

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 covers all 4 parameters with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds extra context by explaining 'since' as block number, 'limit' as max 1–200 default 50, 'dex' as filter, and 'minQuote' as threshold, enhancing usability beyond 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?

The description clearly states the tool provides liquidity-pull/rug alerts on Base by monitoring burn events on recently-launched DEX pools. It specifies the output includes pool, token, and WETH/USDC amounts, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'new_pairs' or 'token_safety', though it could explicitly differentiate.

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 for detecting rug pulls via burn events, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives or when not to use. It mentions cross-checking with token safety, but no exclusions or context for non-use.

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