arc_pool_decoy

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the verdict classification, that it explains the refusal reason, and the NO_DATA sentinel for unknown poolIds. It does not explicitly state that the call is read-only, but the informational nature of a 'verdict' makes that reasonably clear and no contradiction exists.

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 two sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by the refusal-reason behavior and the NO_DATA edge case. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

With no output schema or annotations, the description must cover output semantics itself. It names the verdict, the two possible classifications, the refusal-reason explanation, and the unknown-poolId sentinel. An explicit return shape would be nice, but for a single-parameter lookup tool this is enough for correct selection and invocation.

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%, and the single poolId parameter is already well-described in the input schema as a bytes32 hex string. The description merely refers to 'specific v4 poolId' without adding format, constraints, or further parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: it returns a 'Decoy-pool verdict for a specific v4 poolId' and defines the two possible outcomes (real venue vs high-fee decoy). This is distinct from the sibling tools, which focus on health, launchpads, LP APR, token screening, and agents, so an agent can tell this tool apart immediately.

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 provides clear context: use this tool for a specific v4 poolId to decide whether the pool is a decoy or the real venue, and it notes the NO_DATA case for unknown poolIds. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the unique decoy-check purpose makes the intended usage clear.

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