getNetworkPoolsFilter

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond the parameters. While it does not contradict annotations, it does not enhance transparency further.

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: one sentence stating the purpose followed by a list of required and optional parameters. It front-loads the purpose effectively. However, the list of parameters is lengthy but necessary to indicate available filters.

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 complexity (17 parameters, many optional) and the presence of a full schema and output schema, the description provides a reasonable summary. However, it lacks details on pagination defaults, sorting behavior, and alias deprecation, which are in the schema but could be highlighted.

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. The description lists required and optional parameters but adds no new meaning or dependencies. It does not clarify aliases like sort_by/order_by, which the schema handles.

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 tool's purpose: filtering pools by volume, liquidity, transactions, and creation time. The verb 'Filter' and resource 'pools' are specific, and the listed criteria distinguish it from other pool-related tools like getNetworkPools.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as getNetworkPools or filterNetworkTokens. It only lists required and optional parameters, but no context on when filtering is necessary or how it compares to other tools.

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