get_stableswap_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. It does state the expected behavior: locate a pool UTxO and return its parsed datum. However, it does not disclose behavior when no pool is found, whether it queries chain data directly, or any freshness/error characteristics.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the action, the input relationship, and the output. Every part earns its place, with no filler or repetition.

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 simple one-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description is reasonably complete: it specifies the input pairing and the return value. The only gap is lack of not-found or error behavior, which keeps it from a top score.

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 coverage is 100%: the single 'asset' parameter is enum-constrained and described as an iAsset name. The tool description adds the ADA-collateral pairing context, which is useful. However, the schema's property description omits some enum values (iEUR, iJPY, iADA), so the semantic guidance is slightly inconsistent even though the enum itself is authoritative.

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 uses a specific verb ('Find') and a specific resource ('stableswap pool UTxO') with the exact pairing condition ('iAsset, ADA collateral pair') and the expected result ('return its parsed datum'). This clearly distinguishes it from order-management and other pool-related siblings.

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 clearly implies the use case: you need the pool UTxO and parsed datum for a given iAsset/ADA pair. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the purpose is narrow enough that confusion with sibling tools is unlikely.

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