analytics / rankings

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the substantive behavioral fact that ranking is based on observed indexed swap counts rather than other metrics, but says nothing about sort direction, tie-breaking, or how many pools are considered.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the metric definition leads and the disambiguation trail clause follows.

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?

For a ranking tool with no output schema, an agent still needs to know the ordering convention, the meaning of limit, and why chain_id is required. None of that is present, leaving real gaps beyond a one-line purpose statement.

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% and there are two parameters, one of them required. The description never mentions chain_id (required, and it scopes the whole ranking) or what limit controls, so it fails to compensate for the undocumented 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?

States a specific verb and resource (rank pools) plus the exact ranking metric (observed indexed swap count), which tells an agent this is not analytics.tvl or analytics.volume_fees. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings, so the differentiation is by metric only.

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?

Usage is only implied: rank pools when you care about indexed swap activity. The negative clause 'not wallet ELO or APY' rules out a couple of misreadings but does not define when to pick this over analytics.turnover/tvl/volume_fees.

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