getNetworkDexes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the prerequisite of calling getNetworks first, which is useful behavioral context. However, it lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or return format, leaving gaps for a read operation with pagination.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste: the first states the purpose, the second provides essential usage guidance. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized, earning its place efficiently without 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 read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimal but covers purpose and prerequisite. It lacks details on return values, pagination behavior, or error cases, making it adequate but with clear gaps given the tool's complexity and parameter count.

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 the schema fully documents all parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying network IDs come from getNetworks, which is already hinted in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('Get available DEXes') and resource ('on a specific network'), distinguishing it from siblings like getNetworks (which lists networks) and getDexPools (which focuses on pools). It provides precise scope by mentioning network IDs from getNetworks.

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?

It explicitly states when to use this tool ('First call getNetworks to see valid network IDs'), providing a prerequisite and distinguishing it from getNetworks. This gives clear context for usage without alternatives needed, as siblings serve different purposes (e.g., getDexPools for pools, not DEXes).

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