get_pool_analytics

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and discloses almost nothing: not whether results are cached/realtime, not the time window covered, not whether the pool must exist on the given network. Only the implicit read-only nature of 'get' is conveyed.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though the efficiency comes partly from saying very little.

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 would need to explain what 'analytics' comprises (TVL, volume, fees, APR, time range). It does not, leaving the agent unable to predict the response or judge relevance.

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%, with both required parameters documented, so the schema already does the heavy lifting. The description adds no format hints (e.g., address case sensitivity, supported network naming), so the 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 verb and resource ('get detailed analytics for a specific liquidity pool'), which is more than a tautology, but 'analytics' is an undefined umbrella term. Siblings like get_pool_ohlcv and get_token_liquidity carve out similar territory, and the description gives no signal about how this differs.

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?

There is no indication of when to choose this over get_pool_ohlcv, get_token_liquidity, or get_full_analysis, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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