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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world), and the description layers on genuinely new behavior: a 100 calls/day free tier, 0.002 USDC per call after that, prepaid batches of ~0.01 USDC, and the payment_token/payment_tx handshake driven by the payment-required response. It also flags data may be delayed or wrong.

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?

Front-loads the returned metrics, then appends the necessary disclaimers and pricing mechanics. Slightly long on the payment paragraph, but every clause (quota, price, prepay batch, token source) drives agent behavior, so little is wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description enumerates the returned metrics, which largely substitutes for one, and it fully covers the payment flow and data-quality caveats. Only the precise response shape and pagination/limit behavior are left unspecified.

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 75%, with the schema itself documenting pool format and the two payment parameters. The description adds real meaning by explaining that payment_tx/payment_token are only used after the free tier and that the token holds prepaid calls, plus implying the hours window — enough to compensate for the residual coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('scorecard-style stats for one pool') and enumerates the exact metrics returned (trade count, taker buy/sell split, VWAP, spread, etc.), which cleanly distinguishes it from siblings like get_ohlcv, get_volume, and get_recent_trades.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'one pool over the last N hours' suggests a per-pool rolling window, and the free-tier/payment paragraph tells the agent how to proceed after quota exhaustion. It never states when to prefer this over get_volume, get_ohlcv, or get_recent_trades, nor any exclusion conditions.

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