getNetworkPools

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds that it fetches 'top' pools and requires a network, which aligns with annotations but does not add deeper behavioral context (e.g., pagination limits beyond schema, error handling, or rate limits).

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 no wasted words. Capitalization and structure (REQUIRED/OPTIONAL) front-load the key information. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not explain return format. However, it lacks explanation of what constitutes 'top' pools (default sort by volume_usd descending), does not mention the required 'rationale' parameter, and provides no guidance on relationship to other pool-fetching tools.

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 each parameter is well documented. The description adds value by highlighting deprecated alias parameters (sort, order_by) and preferred alternatives (sort_dir, sort_by), which aids correct usage. However, it does not mention the required 'rationale' parameter.

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'), resource ('top liquidity pools'), and scope ('on a network'). It distinguishes from siblings like getNetworkDexes and getNetworkPoolsFilter by emphasizing 'PRIMARY POOL FUNCTION' and listing key required/optional parameters.

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 lists required and optional parameters but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., getDexPools, getTokenPools, getNetworkPoolsFilter). No when-not-to-use or context for choosing among siblings.

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