dex_get_pair_reserves

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only says 'Get', which implies a read-only operation, but does not describe what is returned (e.g., raw numbers, decimals), whether addresses or symbols are resolved, or potential failure modes. This is minimal context beyond the tool name itself.

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, concise sentence that directly states what the tool does. There is no fluff, and the structure front-loads the core action and resource. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 tool's low complexity and the schema's complete parameter coverage, the description is almost sufficient. The only gap is the lack of return-format information, but for a simple read-only getter this is not critical. The description provides enough for an agent to select the tool correctly and understand its basic purpose.

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 input schema already provides full descriptions for all three parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds the relation 'token pair' and 'DEX', but this is largely implied by the parameter names and schema. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Get liquidity pool reserves for a token pair on a DEX'. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and names the exact resource ('liquidity pool reserves') along with the context ('token pair on a DEX'). This distinguishes it from sibling DEX tools like dex_get_swap_quote or dex_get_trade_history.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or edge cases. While the input schema defines parameters, it offers no contextual hint about when reserve data is needed (e.g., for slippage calculation) versus other DEX querying tools.

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