api_tinyman_get_pool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it 'gets' information, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify if it's idempotent, has rate limits, requires authentication, or what happens with invalid inputs (e.g., non-existent asset pairs). The mention of 'paginated responses' in the schema suggests pagination behavior, but the description doesn't explain this, leaving gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get Tinyman pool information') and specifies the key constraint ('by asset pair'). There is no wasted wording or unnecessary elaboration, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 tool's moderate complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is insufficient. It lacks details on return values (e.g., what pool information is included), error handling, or behavioral traits like pagination hinted in the schema. Without annotations or an output schema, the description should provide more context to guide the agent effectively, but it falls short.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with all parameters well-documented in the schema itself (e.g., asset IDs, version, network, itemsPerPage). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying asset pairs are required. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 action ('Get') and resource ('Tinyman pool information') with the specific condition 'by asset pair'. It distinguishes this tool from other Tinyman tools like 'api_tinyman_get_pool_analytics' or 'api_tinyman_get_swap_quote' by focusing on basic pool information retrieval rather than analytics or quotes. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from non-Tinyman pool-related tools, keeping it at a 4 rather than 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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing asset IDs), compare it to similar tools like 'api_tinyman_get_pool_analytics' for more detailed data, or specify use cases (e.g., checking pool existence vs. getting swap quotes). The absence of any usage context leaves the agent with minimal direction.

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