find_pools

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It reveals that the tool searches across specific DEXs and returns a pool_id, but does not disclose result format, potential empty results, sorting, or pagination behavior. This is adequate for a simple read-only search but lacks depth.

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?

Three concise sentences: the first states purpose, the second explains search scope, the third points to a follow-up. No filler or redundancy; purpose is front-loaded.

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 search tool with no output schema, the description covers the primary use case, the exact protocols searched, and a clear next step. It mentions pool_id as a return field, but does not describe the full result structure or edge case behavior. Still, it is sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly.

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?

The schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions for token_a, token_b, network, and protocol. The tool description only mentions 'token pair' and 'tokens', which adds no meaning beyond the schema. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema carries the semantic load.

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 opens with 'Find DeFi liquidity pools by token pair' — a specific verb and resource that clearly states the tool's function. It also names three protocols (Cetus, DeepBook, Turbos) it searches, which differentiates it from adjacent tools like get_defi_positions.

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 provides clear usage context: use when you have a token pair and need to find matching liquidity pools. It explicitly recommends get_pool_stats for subsequent detail, giving a follow-up path. However, it does not contrast with siblings or state when not to use this tool.

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