get_token_pairs

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 'list' which implies a read operation, but it does not disclose pagination behavior, ordering, whether the list is limited to active pairs, or any other runtime behavior. The agent is left without context on response size or potential 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, highly concise and front-loaded. It conveys the essential purpose without waste, meeting the conciseness benchmark perfectly.

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 simple list tool with a well-described schema, this is barely adequate. However, the sibling get_token_pairs_with_metadata suggests a more detailed alternative exists, and the description does not clarify when the simpler version is sufficient. It also omits any note about return format or limits, which are not in an output schema.

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 three parameters, including types and defaults. The tool description adds no extra semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies here.

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 'Get a list of pairs for a token' clearly states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('pairs for a token'). It is unambiguous and lets the agent know exactly what the tool returns, even without reading sibling names.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_token_pairs_with_metadata or filter_pairs. The description implies usage when you have a token address, but it does not exclude cases where richer metadata is needed or provide any decision criteria.

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