find_pool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions ranking by volume but omits behavioral traits like pagination, error handling, authentication needs, rate limits, or behavior when no pool is found.

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 concise sentences with no filler. The main purpose and input details are front-loaded, making it easy to scan.

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 tool with 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return format (e.g., list of pool addresses, volume details), pagination, or error scenarios, which are critical for an agent to use it correctly.

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 50% (chain and version described; tokenA and tokenB not). The description adds that tokens can be symbols or addresses, which adds value over the schema, but does not fully compensate for the missing descriptions of tokenA/tokenB.

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 verb 'Find', the resource 'Uniswap pool(s) for a token pair', and includes important details like ranking by volume and accepting symbols/addresses. It distinguishes from siblings like 'pool_info' and 'top_pools' by focusing on discovery via token pair.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs siblings such as 'list_markets' or 'top_pools'. It does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or typical use cases beyond the basic purpose.

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