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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: the per-call cost of $0.001 USDC, that results span chains, and that the response is byte-identical to a GET endpoint. This is useful behavioral disclosure without contradicting the 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 two sentences with no filler. The core function is front-loaded, and the second sentence packs two high-value facts (cost and exact endpoint equivalence) into one line. Every element earns its place.

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 the output schema exists, return values are already covered. The description sufficiently covers purpose, scope, cost, endpoint behavior, and the address requirement. An agent has enough context to call this tool correctly without further research.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds mild context by saying 'one token address across chains' and showing an example URL, but it does not explain parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides for 'address' and 'limit'.

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 a precise resource and scope: 'All DEX pools DexScreener knows for one token address across chains' and enumerates the returned fields (price, liquidity, volume, FDV, etc.). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like market_dex_pair_detail (single pair detail) and get_token_price (simple price lookup).

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 to call it: when you need the complete multi-chain pool set for a single token address. It also notes the $0.001 cost and the exact byte-identical endpoint, which helps the agent decide whether this is the right tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.

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