get_iris_liquidity_pools

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. While 'Get' implies read-only access, the description fails to disclose return value structure (critical since no output schema exists), pagination behavior, rate limits, or authentication requirements. It also does not explain what Iris represents.

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 with no wasted words. It front-loads the primary action ('Get liquidity pools from Iris') and appends the filtering capability, making it easy to scan and understand immediately.

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 three-parameter tool with simple string inputs, the description is minimally adequate. However, the lack of an output schema creates a significant gap—the description should ideally describe what data structure is returned (e.g., pool volumes, token pairs, APRs) to help the agent validate results.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description maps 'tokens' to tokenA/tokenB and 'DEX' to the dex parameter, providing minimal semantic grouping, but adds no additional syntax details, example values, or clarification on whether token identifiers are symbols, IDs, or addresses.

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 (Get), resource (liquidity pools), and source (Iris). It distinguishes from siblings like get_dex_yields and get_steelswap_tokens by specifying the Iris source. However, it assumes the user knows what Iris is (likely a DEX/protocol in this domain) without clarifying.

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 phrase 'optionally filtered by tokens or DEX' implies the parameters are optional and indicates their purpose, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus similar data retrieval tools like get_dex_yields or get_order_book, nor does it mention prerequisites like token identifier formats.

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