read_pool_list

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

The description goes beyond standard structural details by defining the business metrics (TVL, utilization, available liquidity) and providing critical behavioral constraints on data representation (all rates are decimal fractions, e.g., 1.0 = 100%). This adds high value to the AI's interpretation of the expected output data.

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 tool uses two concise sentences that front-load the purpose and then immediately address usage and differences from siblings, achieving maximum information density without filler.

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 this is a read-only tool (confirmed by annotations) and the input schema is small, defining the key fields and how they are scaled (decimal fractions) provides the AI with all the necessary context to correctly interpret the results.

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?

While schema coverage is 100%, the description adds semantic value by detailing the specific chains supported by the 'chain_id' parameter (Base, Unichain, Optimism, or Robinhood). This helps the agent decide if the default or a specific override is necessary.

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 explicitly states its function is to 'List all Arcadia lending pools.' It clearly distinguishes this action from the sibling tool, read_pool_info, by stating the alternative is for specific pool APY 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?

It provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'All Arcadia lending pools.' It also provides a clear exclusion/alternative path: 'For APY history on a specific pool, use read_pool_info.'

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