alex_list_pools

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It usefully states mainnet-only availability and lists return fields, but omits pagination/truncation behavior of limit, whether the listing is exhaustive, auth assumptions, and rate limits.

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 front-loaded and mostly economical: purpose, return fields, usage, and mainnet constraint appear in order. The ending tip about earning_opportunities is slightly tangential to pool listing but remains short.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, returned fields, use case, and mainnet constraint. It still leaves limit/pagination behavior implicit, but the schema already documents the only parameter.

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?

There is only one parameter, limit, and schema description coverage is 100% with default and max documented. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource: list all available trading pools on ALEX DEX, and clarifies it discovers swap token pairs. It implicitly separates itself from alex_swap by saying to use it before swapping, though it does not explicitly contrast with alex_get_pool_info.

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?

Explicitly says to use this to find which tokens can be swapped before calling alex_swap, and notes ALEX DEX is mainnet-only. It gives a clear positive use case but no exclusions or comparison to alex_get_pool_info or quote tools.

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