get_dex_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it discloses nothing beyond the one-line purpose — no indication of what the returned 'information' contains, whether results are cached/static, or how large the listing may be. For a read-only lookup the risk is low, but the disclosure gap is real.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with zero filler. Nothing could be trimmed without losing the scope qualifier.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should hint at what the response looks like (e.g., DEX names, ids, chains) so an agent can plan downstream calls. It is adequate for a simple lookup but leaves the return shape entirely unspecified.

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 description coverage is 100% and the single 'network' parameter is already documented with examples (ethereum, solana). The description's phrase 'on a network' merely restates the schema, adding no format or validation detail beyond it, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get information') and resource ('DEXes') scoped to a network, which reads clearly and is distinct from siblings like get_network_pools or get_pool_analytics. The weak point is that 'information' is unspecific about what fields are returned, but the resource is unambiguous.

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 per-network framing implies when it is useful (discovering which DEXes exist on a chain), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no reference to alternatives such as get_network_pools or compare_dex_prices.

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