land_liquidity_pools

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

With no annotations present, the description carries a heavy behavioral burden and meets it well: it discloses mixed wire types, pass-through behavior, non-conversion, malformed-response handling, and non-derivation. It still lacks explicit side-effect/read-only guarantees, but the 'report' language implies read-only; the detail is substantial.

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 front-loaded with the purpose but then extends into several long sentences with overlapping messages (e.g., 'as the native returns' appears twice via first and last sentences, and 'does not derive' tracks the same as earlier statement). As a result it feels a bit detailed, though mostly informative.

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 that there is no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the response shape, field types, known values and non-conversion behavior. It does not fully enumerate all pool object fields, but for a zero-parameter, read-only-list tool, it is sufficiently complete to invoke and understand the response. Minor gaps like error behavior beyond malformed-rate changes remain.

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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds the GET endpoint context and confirms the tool takes no arguments indirectly, but there is nothing else needed for parameters. It does not need to add param-level semantics since none exist.

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 explicitly states 'List the six liquidity-pool rows' and references the upstream endpoint GET /land/liquidity/pools, clearly identifying both verb and resource. This distinguishes it from siblings like land_liquidity_pool_by_id and land_liquidity_pool_by_symbol, and it further clarifies what it does not do (derivation).

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 the tool is for retrieving the full list of six liquidity pools, but it never explicitly mentions it should be used over `land_liquidity_pool_by_id`/`by_symbol` for single-pool lookup, nor does it provide when/when-not guidance. The context is clear but not explicit about alternatives.

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