list_supported_pairs

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

Discloses read-only nature and no auth side effects. Explains that same symbol on different chains are distinct markets, which is a behavioral trait beyond basic description. No rate limits or pagination mentioned, but acceptable for a simple list with no parameters.

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?

Three paragraphs with clear front-loaded first sentence. Each sentence adds value, though could be slightly more concise by merging some lines. Overall well-structured.

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?

Complete context for a parameterless list tool: explains entry format (SYMBOL/chain), usage hints, and distinctions between chains. No output schema needed as purpose is clear.

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?

No parameters in schema, so description does not need to add parameter info. Schema coverage is 100% (no params). Baseline 4 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states the tool lists chain-qualified token pairs supported for RFQ/swap. The use of specific verb 'list' and resource 'token pairs' sets a precise scope, distinguishing it from siblings like create_rfq or swap_quote.

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?

Explicitly provides when to use ('before create_rfq if unsure a token/chain is supported', 'to show available markets') and when not to use ('if already know the pair is supported'), including the rationale that this is for discovery, not a precondition.

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