get_copy_trade_dexes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two traits: the operation is a read ('List') and requires no authentication. It says nothing about whether results are static, cached, or how many DEXes are returned, leaving meaningful behavioral gaps for a no-annotation tool.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, followed by the authentication note. No filler or redundancy.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description should ideally say what the returned DEX list looks like (names, IDs, structure). For a simple one-parameter list tool this is adequate but not complete.

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 100% and even supplies the Solana chain ID value, so the single parameter is already fully documented. The description's examples of DEX names add color but no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb ('List') plus resource ('supported DEXes') and scope ('for a chain'), with concrete examples (Raydium, Pumpfun on Solana) that make the output tangible. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the similar-sounding sibling get_hl_perp_dexes, so it falls short of a 5.

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 context of use is implied (discover which DEXes are available on a chain before configuring copy trading), and 'No auth' is a useful prerequisite note, but no alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions are stated. The agent must infer that get_hl_perp_dexes covers a different venue.

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