get_pair_data

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the data source and tier, hinting at possible rate limits or dependencies, but does not detail aspects like error handling, data freshness, authentication needs, or what happens if the external API fails.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the key purpose and data source. Every part is informative with no redundancy.

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 data retrieval tool with only two string parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential function and data source. However, it lacks details on return format, potential pagination, or limitations, which would improve completeness for an AI agent.

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% with both parameters well-described. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides (chain slug and pair address). Baseline 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 clearly states it provides DEX pair analytics including specific metrics (liquidity, 24h volume, pair age, price). It names the data source (DexScreener) and tier, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_price or get_ohlc that cover different data or scopes.

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 usage for DEX pair data through the listed analytics, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_price or get_market_overview. No exclusion criteria or alternative tool names are provided.

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