get_pair_metadata

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions what data is returned ('price, volume, and liquidity stats') but does not disclose whether this is a read-only operation, any authentication requirements, rate limits, or how the parameters 'statsType' and 'quoteToken' affect behavior. Without this context, the agent cannot anticipate side effects or failure modes.

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 that efficiently states the action and included data. It is front-loaded with the verb 'Get' and contains no filler or redundant phrases, making it easily parseable.

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 annotations, the description must compensate by explaining return structure and behavior. It covers the core purpose and data categories but leaves 'various timeframes' vague and does not clarify how 'statsType' or 'quoteToken' influence results. It is adequate for basic understanding but insufficient for nuanced decisions.

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 100% description coverage for all parameters, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds some context by mentioning 'price, volume, and liquidity stats', which helps infer the role of 'statsType', but it does not elaborate on 'quoteToken' or the exact meaning of 'various timeframes' beyond what the schema already states.

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's action ('Get metadata for a pair of tokens') and lists the included data types (price, volume, liquidity stats). It is specific and uses a distinct verb, but it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'get_detailed_pair_stats', which likely overlaps in functionality.

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 like 'get_detailed_pair_stats' or 'get_token_pairs_with_metadata'. It lacks any context such as typical use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess based on the name alone.

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