dexSpotPairsLatest

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. While it mentions 'paginated list' (implying multiple pages of results) and 'active' pairs (implying some filtering), it doesn't describe important behavioral aspects like rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, response format, or what 'latest market data' specifically includes. For a tool with 27 parameters and no annotations, this is a significant gap.

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 extremely concise - a single sentence that efficiently communicates the core functionality. Every word earns its place: 'Returns' (action), 'paginated list' (format), 'all active dex spot pairs' (resource scope), 'with latest market data' (data included). No wasted words or unnecessary elaboration.

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 (27 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is woefully incomplete. It doesn't explain the extensive filtering capabilities implied by the many parameters, doesn't describe the response format, and provides no behavioral context. For a sophisticated data retrieval tool with many options, this minimal description leaves the agent with insufficient guidance.

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 description provides zero information about any of the 27 parameters. With 0% schema description coverage and no parameter guidance in the description, the agent has no semantic understanding of what parameters like 'network_id', 'liquidity_min', 'sort', or 'aux' mean or how to use them. This is a critical deficiency for such a parameter-rich tool.

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 active dex spot pairs with latest market data.' It specifies the verb ('Returns'), resource ('dex spot pairs'), and scope ('active' with 'latest market data'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'dexPairsQuotesLatest' or 'dexPairsOhlcvLatest', which appear to provide similar but different 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. With multiple sibling tools related to DEX pairs (e.g., dexPairsQuotesLatest, dexPairsOhlcvLatest), there's no indication of what makes this tool unique or when it should be preferred over others. The description only states what it does, not when to use it.

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