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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the $0.02 USDC per-call cost, the six-consecutive-observation terminal verdict rule, fallback to the last corroborated measurement instead of null, and the status split between permissioning and actual illiquidity.

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 long but dense, with the core purpose front-loaded and each sentence adding a specific detail. Some rhetorical asides, such as the zero-bad-debt caveat, are not strictly needed for invocation but contribute interpretive context. Overall it is structured and not padded.

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 tool with no output schema, the description enumerates returned metrics, explains behavior around bad quotes and fallback, states the cost, and references the sibling for deeper methodology. An agent has enough information to call the tool correctly and interpret the result.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (symbol and size_usd). The description reinforces that the nearest measured clip is returned and never interpolated, but this is also present in the schema, adding minimal new value.

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 the tool measures exit liquidity on seized collateral, contrasting realised liquidation proceeds against the oracle mark price. It names specific returned fields and distinguishes router-refusal from true illiquidity, which clearly separates it from siblings like get_dex_quote or get_exit_method.

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 gives clear context for when this tool is relevant: assessing what a liquidator actually realises when selling seized Kamino reserves. It explicitly points to get_exit_method for methodology and corroboration rules, though it does not enumerate exclusions or when to prefer a sibling like get_dex_quote.

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