land_liquidity_pool_by_symbol

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

With no annotations to carry safety or behavior, the description fully shoulders the burden and does so richly: it documents case-sensitivity observations with five concrete examples, notes that they are not a general guarantee, reports the unknown-symbol HTTP 200/data:null response, and calls out the mixed JSON string/number wire types and pass-through behavior.

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 dense but efficient, with all four sentences adding behavioral value and the main purpose front-loaded in the first sentence. It is longer than strictly necessary, but no sentence is filler given the lack of annotations and output schema.

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 single-parameter lookup with no annotations and no output schema, this is complete: it covers the lookup key, the endpoint contract, edge-case behavior, and the response's wire types. An agent can invoke it correctly and interpret the result without additional context.

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?

The schema only describes 'symbol' as a non-empty string, so the description adds meaningful semantics: it supplies observed working casings (GRAIN, grain, Grain, VOUCHER, voucher), warns that casing behavior is not guaranteed for unobserved inputs, and explains how the server treats the supplied symbol. It does not enumerate every valid value, but compensates well for the 0% schema coverage.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Get one liquidity-pool object') and a precise lookup key ('by symbol'), then names the exact upstream route. This leaves no ambiguity about what the tool returns and how it is addressed, and it is clearly distinct from list-level and by-id pool tools.

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 intended use is evident: when a caller has a single symbol and wants the corresponding liquidity pool. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, but the 'by symbol' framing and endpoint path provide clear context without exclusions.

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