get_pair

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral context. It only states 'Get details' without specifying the return structure, error behavior, or any side effects. For a simple read this is minimal, but it lacks sufficient detail given no output schema.

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?

A single sentence with clear, front-loaded information. Every word earns its place, with no unnecessary details or repetition.

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 low complexity (2 required params, no output schema), the description is adequate for a direct lookup but does not describe the response shape or usage edge cases. It is minimally viable but not rich enough to fully guide an agent without additional context.

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 the description restates the parameters without adding new meaning. The schema already explains 'Pair / pool address' and chain id examples, so the description adds no semantic value beyond the structured fields.

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 uses a specific verb ('get') and a clear resource ('specific pair'), and explicitly identifies the lookup keys (chain id and pair address). This distinguishes it from siblings like search_pairs (search-based) and get_token_pools (by token).

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 implies usage when the exact chainId and pairId are known, but it does not mention alternatives or exclusions. There is no guidance on when to use search_pairs instead, leaving the agent to infer from sibling names.

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