DexScreener pools for a token

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: results are sorted by liquidity descending, an empty list means the token is not indexed on that chain, and verbose=true exposes the raw upstream payload. No contradiction with 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-loaded: action, scope, sort order, output fields, chain support, limits, and edge-case behavior each get one clause. There is no filler or redundant content.

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?

The tool is simple and well-covered by the input schema and output schema. The description supplies the missing runtime context: supported chains, default/max limit, empty-list interpretation, and verbose behavior. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description restates chain aliases and limit/verbose behavior, but adds little beyond what the parameter descriptions already provide. It does not deepen understanding of token_address formats or how parameters interact.

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 opens with a specific action and resource: 'list dexscreener pools for one token contract on one chain,' and names the returned fields. It is clearly scoped to token-level pool listing, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like dex_search and dex_pair.

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 gives clear invocation context: one chain, one token contract, sorted by liquidity, with a meaningful empty-list behavior. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use the tool, but the context is unambiguous enough for correct selection.

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