get_pools

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return fields (metadata, TVL, volume, APR), which is useful, but omits pagination behavior, default ordering, rate limits, and that limit defaults to 20. Adequate but with clear gaps for a read tool.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, then the return payload. No waste, no redundancy.

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?

For a no-required-param list tool with a fully described schema, the description covers purpose and returns. It lacks only pagination/ordering detail, but with no output schema and a rich input schema, this is nearly complete.

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%, so all four parameters (limit, symbol, pool_type, is_verified) are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds only that filters are optional, which the schema mostly implies via required=0. Baseline 3 is 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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (PactFi AMM liquidity pools on Algorand) and distinguishes this from the singular sibling get_pool. An agent can identify it as the discovery/browse tool immediately.

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 mentions optional filters, implying a search/browse use case, but does not explicitly say when to use this versus get_pool or get_quote. Usage is inferred but no exclusions or alternatives are named.

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