dexscreener_search_pairs

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

With only openWorldHint in annotations, there is no clear safety or read-only indication. The description adds no behavioral details such as return format, sorting, pagination, rate limits, or limitations. It does not even explicitly state that the search is a read-only operation, leaving the agent to assume this from the verb 'search'.

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, well-structured sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose. There is no redundant text or filler, making it easy to parse and remember.

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 absence of an output schema and only vague annotations, the description should at least hint at what the search results contain (e.g., pair addresses, token symbols, liquidity) or how to interpret the response. It does not, leaving a significant gap for a tool that will likely return lists of pairs with rich attributes. The description is adequate only for understanding the basic action, not the full context.

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 complete descriptions for both parameters (query and chainId), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional semantic clarity beyond mentioning 'query string', which aligns with the query parameter but does not explain nuances like wildcards or matching behavior.

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 searches for DEX pairs using a query string on Dexscreener. It uses a specific verb (search) with a concrete resource (DEX pairs) and platform (Dexscreener), distinguishing it from sibling tools like dexscreener_get_pairs_by_chain_and_pair, which target specific lookup methods.

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 alternative dexscreener tools or other market search tools. It does not state any exclusions or prerequisites, relying entirely on the reader to infer usage context from the name and sibling names.

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