Fees and pool parameters

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint false), yet the description adds genuinely new behavior: it reads the live on-chain Pool object via Sui GraphQL and silently falls back to indexer pool-creation values if GraphQL is unavailable, plus a data-may-be-delayed-or-wrong caveat. That fallback path materially affects how the agent should trust the result, which the annotations do not convey.

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 tool-specific content is front-loaded in the first two sentences with no wasted words. The trailing 'Education/information only; not financial advice' sentence is boilerplate legal hedging rather than operational guidance, though it is short enough not to seriously harm the definition.

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 one required parameter, no output schema, and annotations already declaring read-only behavior, the description fills the remaining gaps well by naming the returned field groups, the data source, the fallback source, and the staleness risk. An agent can decide whether to call it and how much to trust the result without further information.

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% and the single 'pool' parameter is already documented as BASE_QUOTE with case-insensitive '/'-or-'-' separators, so the description adds no format or constraint detail beyond it. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema fully carries parameter documentation.

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 enumerates the exact data returned (taker/maker fees, DEEP stake, tick/lot/min size, whitelist/stable flags, vault balances) for a DeepBook pool, which is far more specific than the title. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the close sibling get_pool_stats, leaving the agent to infer the boundary between 'parameters' and 'stats'.

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 by the content list (call this when you need fee tiers or lot-size constraints), and the GraphQL-with-indexer-fallback note tells the agent what happens if the primary source fails. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of an alternative sibling such as get_pool_stats or estimate_fees.

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