topology / explore

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful provenance context by disclosing that the graph is built from 'indexed pools and RPC token lists' and that missing tokens are labeled. It does not disclose cost, latency, or output shape, but with annotations present this is a reasonable middle score.

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 dense sentence with no filler, and the core action ('Construct token-pool graph') is front-loaded. It could be slightly clearer about the two data sources, but every phrase contributes to the purpose.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should explain the graph's return shape and how limit affects it, but it only vaguely says a graph is constructed and missing tokens are labeled. Combined with 0% parameter coverage, an agent lacks enough information to invoke this tool confidently.

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%, so the description carries the full burden for explaining the two parameters. It never mentions chain_id or limit, leaving the required chain identifier and the limit's effect on graph size undocumented. Only weak domain inference connects 'chain' concepts to chain_id.

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 names a specific action and resource: 'Construct token-pool graph from indexed pools and RPC token lists.' It also notes edge-case handling ('labeling missing tokens'), so an agent can tell this is a graph-building tool. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling topology.rooted, leaving the relationship between the two topology tools ambiguous.

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 explains what inputs are used but gives no guidance on when to call this tool versus topology.rooted or pools.list. There are no stated prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative-routing hints, so the agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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