alex_get_pool_info

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool returns reserve balances and pool details and is mainnet-only, but it does not describe errors, missing-pool behavior, or any rate-limit/permission considerations.

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 short and front-loads the main purpose and return content. The final tip about `earning_opportunities` is useful but somewhat tangential.

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 simple two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it states the purpose, return content, and mainnet availability. A little more detail on missing-pool or error behavior would make it fully complete.

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%, so both required token parameters are already documented. The description adds the notion of a token pair but does not provide additional syntax, format, or validation details beyond the schema.

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 and resource: get liquidity pool information from ALEX DEX, scoped to a token pair. It clearly implies a single-pool lookup rather than a list, but it does not explicitly name the sibling `alex_list_pools` to differentiate the two.

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 implies the tool is for looking up a pool by token pair and notes the mainnet-only constraint. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this versus `alex_list_pools`, `alex_get_swap_quote`, or `alex_swap`.

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