get_pool

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. 'Get' implies a read-only operation and the second sentence usefully discloses what is returned (on-chain reserves, fee configuration, LP supply, API metadata), but there is no mention of permissions, rate limits, or behavior for an unknown/invalid appId.

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?

Two tight sentences with the action and scope front-loaded and the return contents following; no wasted words.

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, the description helpfully enumerates the returned fields, which is the main compensating value. A read-only single-pool fetch needs little else, though it could note behavior on a nonexistent appId.

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% with a single documented appId parameter, so the schema already explains the input. The description only echoes 'by application ID' and adds no format or lookup nuance, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 ... PactFi pool information) scoped by application ID, and the singular 'pool' plus 'detailed' implicitly contrasts with the get_pools list tool. It stops short of explicitly naming that sibling, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

Usage is implied: fetch details for one pool when you already have its appId. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of the get_pools alternative for listing.

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