dexListingsLatest

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 mentions 'paginated list' and 'latest aggregate market data', which hints at read-only behavior and data freshness. However, it lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what 'aggregate market data' specifically includes (e.g., volume, prices). For a tool with 7 parameters and no annotations, this is insufficient.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It wastes no words and directly states what the tool does. Every part of the sentence ('Returns...', 'paginated list...', 'latest aggregate market data') adds value without redundancy.

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 complexity (7 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on parameter usage, behavioral traits (e.g., pagination mechanics, data sources), and output format. For a tool that likely returns structured financial data, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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 0%, meaning none of the 7 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The description doesn't explain any parameters—it doesn't mention 'start', 'limit', 'sort', 'type', etc., or their purposes. While it implies pagination and sorting via 'paginated list', it doesn't map this to specific parameters. With low coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving parameters largely undocumented.

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 purpose: 'Returns a paginated list of all decentralised cryptocurrency exchanges including the latest aggregate market data.' It specifies the verb ('Returns'), resource ('decentralised cryptocurrency exchanges'), and scope ('paginated list' with 'latest aggregate market data'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'dexInfo' or 'dexNetworksList', which likely provide different types of DEX data.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'dexInfo' (which might provide detailed info on a specific DEX) or 'dexNetworksList' (which might list networks rather than exchanges). There's no context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions.

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