pool_info

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

The description warns that TVL is flagged as unreliable, which is a useful behavioral caveat. However, with no annotations provided, it does not disclose other traits such as data staleness, rate limits, or whether the call is read-only. The one caveat is helpful but not comprehensive.

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 a single sentence that is front-loaded with the purpose ('Detailed stats') and covers key aspects without waste. It is highly concise and structured effectively.

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 no output schema, the description lists expected return fields (price, volume, fees, liquidity/reserves), which is adequate for an info tool. Missing typical fields like token symbols or pair name, but 'detailed stats' implies coverage.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context like 'by address' for the pool parameter and mentions version omission behavior, but these add marginal value beyond the schema.

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 that it provides 'Detailed stats for one Uniswap pool/pair by address', listing key data points like price, volume, fees, and liquidity/reserves. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'find_pool' or 'top_pools'.

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 implies use when you have a specific pool address and need stats, but it does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or suggest alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention that 'top_pools' or 'list_markets' might be better for discovery.

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