uniswap_pool_id

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

With no annotations, the description partially discloses behavior: currencies are sorted automatically and incorrect ordering leads to wrong poolId. However, it does not mention if the call is read-only, cost, or error handling.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and every sentence adds value. No unnecessary information.

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 does not specify the return format or behavior for non-existent pools. Default values for fee, hooks, and tickSpacing are not mentioned, making the tool less complete for autonomous agents.

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 only 40%, and the description only adds context about currency ordering for currency0 and currency1. It fails to explain parameters like hooks, tickSpacing, or the default values, leaving a significant gap.

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 computes the Uniswap v4 poolId from a PoolKey, specifying a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like uniswap_find_pool or uniswap_pool_state, which serve different purposes.

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 warns about unsorted keys causing non-existent poolIds, which is a usage hint but does not explicitly tell when to use this tool over alternatives. No comparison with sibling tools is provided.

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