search_pairs

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that the tool returns price, 24h change, volume, liquidity, and FDV, which is useful behavioral context. However, it omits any mention of pagination, result limits, data freshness, or potential edge cases (e.g., exact-match constraints). This is adequate but not thorough for a tool with zero annotation support.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and includes only essential information. Every word contributes: the search scope ('across all chains') and the return fields are useful and concise. There is 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?

For a single-parameter read-only search tool, the description covers the purpose, input scope, and typical return data. It does not explain whether the result is a list or a single object, nor mention any response limits, which could be a minor gap. Overall, it is sufficient for straightforward invocation, but a bit more context on result shape would make it fully 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?

The input schema already fully describes the 'query' parameter with examples ('PEPE', 'WIF', contract address), giving 100% coverage. The tool description repeats the same semantics without adding new details or nuances beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies because schema coverage is high and the description does not need to compensate.

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 verb ('Search'), the resource ('DexScreener trading pairs'), and the scope ('by token name, symbol, or contract address across all chains'). It differentiates from sibling tools like get_pair (exact pair lookup) and get_tokens (token lookup) by emphasizing broad search, and it also lists the returned data fields.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: when you need to find trading pairs via partial identifiers across all chains. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like get_pair or get_tokens, nor does it state when not to use it. It stops short of explicit exclusionary guidance.

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