getNetworkPools

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 this is for 'top liquidity pools' and the 'MAIN way to get pool data,' which gives some behavioral context about scope and importance. However, it doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or what 'top' means (e.g., by volume, liquidity). The description adds value but leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotations.

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 highly concise and front-loaded, with only two sentences that directly address purpose and usage guidelines. Every sentence earns its place by providing critical information without redundancy or fluff, making it efficient and well-structured for an AI agent.

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's moderate complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is fairly complete for its core purpose and usage. It clearly states what the tool does and when to use it, which are key for an AI agent. However, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like rate limits or error handling, and without an output schema, it doesn't describe return values, leaving some gaps in context.

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 already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain 'network' beyond being 'specific,' or clarify 'page'/'limit' usage). With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description doesn't compensate with extra insights.

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 the verb ('Get') and resource ('top liquidity pools on a specific network'), making the purpose clear. It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools by emphasizing it's the 'MAIN way to get pool data' and explicitly mentions alternatives to avoid ('getTopPools' or 'getAllPools' concepts), providing clear differentiation.

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 guidance by stating 'This is the MAIN way to get pool data - there is NO global pools function' and instructing to 'Use this instead of any "getTopPools" or "getAllPools" concepts.' This clearly indicates when to use this tool versus alternatives, including both positive direction (use this) and exclusions (not other concepts).

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