Retrieves top liquidity pools on a specified blockchain network, with options to limit results and sort by volume, liquidity, or price change.
Get top liquidity pools on a specific network
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Number of pools (default: 20) | |
| network | Yes | Network name (e.g., ethereum, solana, bsc) | |
| sort_by | No | Sort by: volume_usd, liquidity_usd, price_change (default: volume_usd) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.3.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. The verb 'Get' signals a read operation, but there is no explicit read-only confirmation, no mention of rate limits, pagination, or return behavior.
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 with no wasted words. Its brevity is appropriate for a simple read tool, even though other dimensions suffer from under-specification.
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?
The tool is low-complexity and the schema fully documents its parameters, but there is no output schema and no annotations. The description does not explain return values, default result size, or ordering beyond what the schema states.
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%, so the schema already documents network, limit, and sort_by. The description adds 'top' and 'specific network' but no syntax, defaults, or filtering semantics beyond what the schema provides.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get top liquidity pools on a specific network.' It is clear and scoped, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as get_pool_analytics or get_token_liquidity.
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 implies the tool is for listing top pools on a network, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternatives. An agent must infer its role from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.