getTokenPools

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description mentions the tool is 'great for finding where a token is traded,' which hints at a read-only lookup function, but doesn't explicitly state whether it's a read operation, what permissions are needed, or any rate limits. For a tool with 8 parameters and no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 extremely concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence earns its place: the first states what the tool does, and the second provides usage context. There's zero wasted verbiage.

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 (8 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose and hints at usage but lacks behavioral details (e.g., pagination behavior, error cases, or response format). For a read-focused tool with rich schema documentation, it's passable but leaves room for improvement in contextual guidance.

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%, meaning all parameters are well-documented in the schema itself. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain the 'reorder' parameter's effect or provide examples). With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to.

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: 'Get liquidity pools containing a specific token on a network.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('liquidity pools'), and scope ('containing a specific token on a network'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'getNetworkPools' or 'getDexPools' beyond the token-specific focus.

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 implied usage context: 'Great for finding where a token is traded.' This suggests the tool is for discovering trading venues for a token. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'getNetworkPools' (which might list all pools) or 'search' (which might have broader functionality). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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