dexscreener_get_token_pairs_by_token_address

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

Annotations only include openWorldHint, which is not a behavioral/safety disclosure. The description adds no behavioral caveats such as chainId behavior, pagination, rate limits, response size, or result details. 'All DEX pairs' is the core behavior but lacks context.

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, front-loaded sentence that is appropriately sized for a simple read tool. Every word earns its place and there is no 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?

The schema is sufficient for basic invocation, but with no output schema and sparse behavioral disclosure, the agent gets limited sense of return value shape or edge cases. It is adequate but minimal.

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 input schema provides 100% parameter coverage with descriptions for both tokenAddresses (including maxItems: 30) and chainId (including default behavior). The description adds little beyond the 'all DEX pairs' framing and 'up to 30' constraint already present in the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and a clear resource ('all DEX pairs for given token addresses (up to 30) from Dexscreener'). It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like dexscreener_search_pairs and dexscreener_get_pairs_by_chain_and_pair by specifying the token-address input.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'for given token addresses' only restates the input condition and does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or when a sibling tool would be more appropriate.

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