dex_pool

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

With no annotations, the description adds important behavioral traits: cost per call ($0.01 USDC), caching up to 30 seconds, and that it reads via JSON-RPC directly from chains. It does not cover error handling or authentication, but it provides good transparency.

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 concise and front-loaded with cost information. Each sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more structured. Overall, it is appropriately sized.

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?

Given the simple 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers expected returns, caching, and cost. Missing error handling, but completeness is good for the tool's simplicity.

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%, and the description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema. The schema already defines chain as enum and poolAddress with a pattern. The description's mention of parameters is incidental.

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 tool reads live on-chain state of Uniswap v2/v3-compatible DEX pools, with specific details on auto-detecting pool type and returning token data, spot price, liquidity, etc. It distinguishes well from siblings like crypto_price and defi_tvl.

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 explicitly mentions use cases: 'For price discovery, liquidity checks, and trading agents needing trustless pair state at the latest block.' It implies when to use but does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives, though context is clear.

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