getDexPools

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions the prerequisite tools, it doesn't describe what 'Get pools' actually returns (e.g., pool metadata, liquidity data), whether there are rate limits, authentication requirements, or pagination behavior beyond what's in the schema. For a tool with 6 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 extremely concise with just two sentences that both earn their place. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides crucial usage guidance. There's no wasted verbiage or redundant information.

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 tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. While it provides good usage guidance, it lacks information about what the tool returns, error conditions, or behavioral characteristics. The agent would need to guess about the response format and operational constraints.

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 100%, so all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning the prerequisite tools for network and dex parameters, but doesn't provide additional context about parameter interactions or usage patterns. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 action ('Get pools') and resource ('from a specific DEX on a network'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like getNetworkPools or getTokenPools, which appear to serve similar pool-related functions.

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 guidance on when to use this tool: 'First use getNetworks, then getNetworkDexes to find valid DEX IDs.' This creates a clear prerequisite workflow and distinguishes it from other pool-related tools by emphasizing the DEX-specific filtering requirement.

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