uniswap_find_pool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It states the tool searches across standard fee tiers, suggesting a read-only operation, but does not disclose what happens if no pool is found, error conditions, or any side effects. This is adequate but minimal.

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?

Description is a single sentence, front-loaded with purpose. No redundant information. Slightly too brief given the lack of other documentation, but concise overall.

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 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description does not explain the output format (e.g., success/failure, pool address) or error handling. It is incomplete for an agent to fully understand usage and expected behavior.

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%, yet the description does not explain any parameters beyond mentioning 'token pair'. The 'hooks' parameter is not mentioned at all. This leaves the agent to infer meaning from parameter names alone, which is insufficient.

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?

Description clearly states the tool searches for an initialized v4 pool for a token pair across standard fee tiers. The verb 'search' and resource 'v4 pool' are specific. It could be improved by explicitly stating what is returned (e.g., pool address), but it differentiates from siblings like uniswap_pool_id.

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?

Description implies usage context by noting v4 pools are not enumerable on-chain, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., uniswap_pool_id). No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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