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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the mode-specific behavior and the native token limitation, which is useful. However, it does not mention pagination, response details, or any potential side effects, though the output schema covers return structure. Given no annotations, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 concise and well-structured. It opens with a clear one-line purpose, then lists modes with bold headers, and adds a critical note. Every sentence provides unique value, and the length is appropriate for the tool's complexity.

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?

The description covers the essential selection context (modes, native token limitation) and is sufficient for an agent to decide when to use the tool. The schema provides exhaustive parameter documentation and the output schema covers return values, so the description does not need to repeat those details. It is not a perfect 5 because it omits any mention of the required tokenAddress parameter, but the mode descriptions imply it.

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 fully documents each parameter. The description adds minimal parameter-specific semantics beyond the mode names and the note about native token support, which is not in the schema. Baseline is 3 for high coverage, and the description's added insight is modest, so a 3 is justified.

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's function: 'Get DEX trades for a specific token.' It defines two distinct modes (onchain_tokens and perps), which clarifies the resource and scope. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like address_dex_trades by focusing on token-level queries.

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?

Provides explicit guidance for mode selection, especially the native token limitation: 'only ETH is supported among native tokens. For other native tokens (SOL, BTC, BNB, etc.), use perps mode instead.' This tells the agent when to choose perps over onchain_tokens. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternative tools like address_dex_trades, so there is room for improvement.

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