DexScreener pair snapshot

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: it is a live snapshot, not_found has a defined meaning, and verbose=true includes the raw upstream payload. These details help the agent understand observable behavior without contradicting the annotations.

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 compact and front-loads the core purpose before listing supported chains and behavioral notes. Each sentence contributes useful information, though the chain-alias enumeration is duplicated in the schema and makes the description slightly dense.

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 an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers supported chains, aliases, required pair address, not_found semantics, and the verbose flag, which is sufficient for correct invocation of a read-only snapshot tool. It could be more complete by naming sibling distinctions, but nothing essential for calling this tool is missing.

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 100%, with all three parameters already described in the input schema. The description mostly repeats the chain aliases and verbose behavior rather than adding substantial new parameter-level meaning; the only slight addition is the not_found error semantics, which is more about output behavior than parameter meaning.

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 returns a live snapshot of one DexScreener pair and enumerates the fields included (price, liquidity, FDV, market cap, 24h volume, txns, price change windows, links, boosts). It identifies the resource and verb specifically, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like dex_search or dex_token_pairs, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 tells the caller what inputs are needed (chain plus pair address), which chains/aliases are supported, and what not_found means. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as dex_search or jupiter_prices, so usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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