Find pools

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses important behavioral traits: it searches every pool across multiple protocols and fee tiers, matches pairs in either order, and reports token_a/token_b as the pool's own order read from its type. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 focused sentences: primary purpose first, search scope second, and follow-up tool third. No filler or redundant restatement of the schema.

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 search scope, token ordering semantics, and the recommended next step via get_pool_stats, which implies the result contains pool_id. However, with no output schema, the exact return shape is not fully explicit, leaving a minor gap for an agent predicting the response.

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 already covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning for token_a/token_b by stating the pair is searched in either order and that returned token order is the pool's type order, which helps an agent pass arguments correctly.

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 first sentence, 'Find DeFi liquidity pools by token pair,' states a specific verb and resource. It then names the exact protocols searched (Cetus, DeepBook v2/v3, Turbos) and clarifies pair-order semantics, distinguishing it clearly from the sibling list.

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 use this tool by explaining its exhaustive search behavior across protocols and fee tiers, and it directs the agent to 'get_pool_stats on a returned pool_id for detailed stats,' showing the follow-up path. It doesn't explicitly state exclusions (e.g., when a pool ID is already known), but the guidance is otherwise unambiguous.

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