get_all_pairs

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden of disclosing behavior. It mentions the output includes volume and spread data, but does not state whether results are sorted, paginated, filtered by liquidity, or what happens for pairs with missing data. No details on rate limits or required permissions.

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, which is concise, but it omits critical context such as parameter semantics and usage scenarios. It is under-specified rather than appropriately concise, earning a middle score because the sentence does effectively communicate the core purpose.

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 the lack of annotations, output schema, and incomplete parameter explanations, the description is insufficient for an agent to confidently invoke the tool. With two optional parameters and zero explanation, the agent cannot know what values to pass or what the response will look like. The minimal context provided is not enough for correct usage.

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 0% and the description makes no attempt to explain the parameters. minVolume and quoteAsset are introduced only in the schema with type information, but the agent cannot infer their purpose or how they affect the returned pairs. The description adds no value beyond the schema for parameters.

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 states a specific verb 'Get', a clear resource 'all trading pairs', and explicitly mentions the data fields 'volume and spread data'. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_spread (single pair spread) and get_ticker (single pair ticker).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The name and description imply it lists all pairs, but there is no explicit mention of when to prefer it over get_spread, get_ticker, or scan_spreads, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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