refresh_pairs_cache

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and discloses key behavioral traits: it forces a cache re-fetch, that the fetch covers all pairs regardless of the pair argument (pair is only for display), and the default TTL of 1h. This goes beyond simply stating 'refresh' and gives the agent an accurate model of side effects.

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 tight and front-loaded: an action and category, a why, and a clarifying note about the parameter, all in two sentences. No filler exists, and 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?

For a simple maintenance tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers its purpose, usage timing, and parameter behavior. It does not mention return values, but for a cache-refresh tool this is not critical; the missing bits (e.g., failure modes, rate limits) are minor given its simplicity.

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?

The schema already documents the pair parameter with exactly the same behavior (all-pairs refresh with pair used only for display), so schema coverage is 100%. The description reiterates this but adds no new semantic value beyond what the schema provides, 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 explicitly states the specific action (force re-fetch of TTL cache) and resource (/spot/pairs fee rates), clearly distinguishing it from the many market-data and analysis siblings. The category '[Maintenance / Fees]' further disambiguates its server-side maintenance role.

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 a concrete use case ('when you want to immediately reflect the latest maker/taker fee rates at campaign boundaries'), which clearly conveys when the tool should be invoked. It does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., under normal TTL operation), but the intended context is clear enough for an agent to decide.

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