blockrun_dex

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds that it's free and from DexScreener, but does not disclose rate limits, data freshness, or any additional behavioral traits. With annotations covering the main points, this is adequate but not enhanced.

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 concise with bullet points for use cases and examples. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and free status. Every sentence adds value; no wasted words.

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 tool has no output schema, but for a search/query tool, the description covers usage, examples, and data source adequately. It may lack details on response format or pagination, but given the complexity, it's nearly complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-described in the schema. The description adds value by providing usage examples (e.g., blockrun_dex({ query: 'SOL' })) that show how parameters interact, which goes beyond the schema definitions. This aids agent understanding.

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 it gets real-time DEX data from DexScreener, lists specific use cases (token prices, liquidity, volume), and distinguishes from sibling tools like blockrun_markets or blockrun_defi by focusing on DEX data. Verb+resource is specific and actionable.

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 explicit use cases (e.g., 'Token prices and liquidity across chains') and example queries. It does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, but the context of siblings is present. For a data retrieval tool, this is clear enough.

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