getLPPoolList

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds useful context about return fields and filtering behavior, but it also claims filtering by 'tag' without a corresponding schema parameter, which is misleading. It does not disclose pagination, result limits, or other operational behaviors.

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 reasonably front-loaded with the core query and return-value statements. But the 'AI agent can use this...' sentence is redundant, and the agent hint partly repeats the first sentence. Not every sentence earns its place, though the overall length is still acceptable.

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 read-only tool, the description gives enough to make a basic call with or without tokenSymbol. However, the missing tag parameter, lack of output schema, and no mention of pagination or result-size behavior leave meaningful gaps for an agent trying to use or interpret results confidently.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It does explain that tokenSymbol filters for pools containing a specific token, which is valuable. However, it also references a 'tag' filter that is not present in the input schema, and it gives no format, case sensitivity, or matching rules for tokenSymbol.

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 the tool queries available liquidity pools and returns addresses, supported tokens, APY, and TVL. This distinguishes it as a list/discovery endpoint from siblings like getLPPoolInfo, though it does not explicitly name that sibling. The mention of 'optional filtering by tag and token' is slightly confusing because only tokenSymbol appears in the input schema.

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 explicit usage context: use this endpoint when users want to browse available LP pools or search for pools by token. It gives clear conditions for invocation. However, it does not mention when not to use it or point to alternative tools such as getLPPoolInfo for single-pool details.

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