getNetworkDexes

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), the description adds that it's keyless, returns paginated results under 'dexes', and explains the sorting and pagination parameters. It also discloses legacy parameter aliases (sort/order_by) and clarifies that they are not deprecated at the REST layer.

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 concise and well-structured: first sentence states purpose and output, followed by key usage info, then clear parameter details. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. It front-loads critical info (read-only, keyless) and uses examples to clarify use.

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?

Given the tool has 8 parameters (with many optional and aliases), an existing output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description is complete. It specifies the network prerequisite, pagination details, sorting options, output structure, and use cases. No gaps are apparent.

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%, but the description adds value by explaining the legacy aliases (order_by/sort), the valid values for sort_by ('pool'), and the default/max/1-indexed behavior for pagination. The required 'rationale' parameter is not mentioned in the description but is in the schema, so the description doesn't fully compensate for all parameters. Thus, slightly above baseline.

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 it lists DEXes on a single network with examples (Uniswap on ethereum, Raydium on solana), and specifies the output fields 'dexes' and 'page_info'. It distinguishes from siblings by noting this feeds into getDexPools and is scoped to one network, contrasting with getNetworks and getDexPools.

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 clear use cases ('which DEXes are on Base?', 'does Solana have Orca?') and explicitly states the prerequisite: 'call getNetworks first for the slug'. It also implies when not to use (for pools, use getDexPools) and specifies the scope (single network).

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