top_pools

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It reveals that ranking uses volumeUSD (not TVL) and includes a TVL caveat about spam-token pricing. It also specifies return fields (pair, fee tier, volume, fees, TVL caveat). It does not mention auth needs, rate limits, or data freshness, but for a read-only query, this is adequate.

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: first sentence states purpose and key caveat, second lists returns. No redundant words, every sentence earns its place. Front-loaded with the most critical information (ranking by volumeUSD, not TVL).

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?

The description fully explains the tool's purpose, ranking logic, return fields, and a caveat. Since there is no output schema, the description adequately covers what the agent receives. With 3 parameters all documented in schema and the description adding behavioral context, it is complete for the tool's complexity.

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 good descriptions (chain aliases, first min/max/default, version options). The description adds value by explaining the ranking metric (volumeUSD), the TVL caveat, and the output fields, which supplements the schema. A 5 would require additional parameter details not in schema, but the added context is sufficient.

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 ranks Uniswap pools by lifetime volumeUSD, explicitly distinguishes from TVL-based ranking, and lists returned fields. The verb 'top' combined with 'ranked by lifetime volumeUSD' is specific and differentiates from sibling tools like pool_info or find_pool.

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 usage for retrieving top Uniswap pools by volume on a chain. It does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide. A slightly higher score would require explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use conditions.

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