get_lp_pools

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. The verb 'Get' implies read-only behavior, and the description specifies the returned data types (TVL and per-token amounts), but it does not explicitly state side-effect freeness or other behavioral traits.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and lists the key data points without unnecessary words. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's 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?

For a parameterless getter, the description provides adequate context on purpose and output content. However, it does not explicitly state whether it returns all pools or a single pool, nor the return structure, but these are easily inferred from the zero-parameter schema.

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 tool accepts zero parameters, so the schema has full coverage and no parameter descriptions are needed. The baseline for 0-parameter tools is 4, and the description adds sufficient context about what information is returned.

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 uses the specific verb 'Get' and clearly identifies the resource as 'TLP liquidity pool information' with explicit mention of TVL and per-token liquidity amounts. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_markets and get_stake_pools, which target different data.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance or alternative tools are mentioned. The description implies usage through the name and content, but there is no exclusionary language to help differentiate from similar getter tools.

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