filter_pairs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic function and does not mention side effects, pagination, sorting defaults, required permissions, or return format. For a tool with nested filters and rankings, this is insufficient.

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 sentence and is easy to parse, but it is under-specified. It front-loads the action but leaves out critical details that would be expected given the tool's complexity, making it too terse to be fully effective.

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 a complex schema with nested objects and no output schema, but the description does not explain the filter structure, available attributes, sorting options, or the statsType parameter. This makes the tool difficult to use correctly without additional documentation.

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 43%, and the description lists only a few example filter fields (volume, price, liquidity) without explaining how to structure the filters object, what rankings does, or the meaning of statsType. This adds minimal meaning beyond the schema's existing descriptions.

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 retrieves a list of pairs with filtering by volume, price, liquidity, etc. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('pairs'), and the examples of filter criteria differentiate it from generic pair retrieval tools like get_token_pairs, though the distinction is not explicit.

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 alternatives such as filter_tokens or get_token_pairs. There are no exclusions or context clues beyond the basic function, leaving the agent without actionable selection criteria.

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