get_token_pools

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It communicates a read-only operation via 'Get' and scopes results to a specific token and chain, but it does not disclose potential limitations such as supported chain formats, pagination, data volume, or the structure of each returned pool. This leaves some behavioral ambiguity.

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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and object. There is no extraneous information, making it highly scannable and efficient.

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?

This is a simple read-only tool with two well-documented parameters and no output schema. The description sufficiently conveys what the tool does and the scope, but it does not elaborate on the format or fields of the returned pool objects. Given the simplicity and clear inputs, it is mostly complete but could benefit from a bit more detail on return structure.

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% for both parameters, with chainId and tokenAddress already well-described. The description only adds generic references to 'specific token' and 'given chain', providing no new semantic detail beyond the schema. Thus, the baseline of 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?

The description clearly uses the verb 'Get' with a specific resource ('all liquidity pools (pairs) for a specific token on a given chain'). It distinguishes itself from sibling 'get_pair' by emphasizing 'all' pools, indicating it returns a collection rather than a single pair.

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 one needs all pools for a specific token and chain, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this over alternatives like get_pair or search_pairs. No exclusions or alternative guidance are provided, so guidance is only implied.

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