getTokenPools

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful context: 'Read-only and keyless', 'unknown addresses return empty results, not an error', and 'Extra params such as inversed or paired_token_address are unsupported and error'. This goes beyond annotations by explaining error behavior and keyless access.

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 dense but well-organized: purpose, output structure, usage examples, network-scoping caveat, alternative tool reference, and parameter summary. It's longer than ideal but every sentence adds value. The parameter summary at the end is efficient, though it partially duplicates schema info.

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 (13 params, 4 enums, aliases, unsupported params), the description covers the essential usage patterns, error cases, and alternatives. The output schema exists, so return values are documented. The description could mention pagination behavior more explicitly, but the cursor parameter and next_cursor reference in the description cover it adequately.

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% with detailed descriptions for each parameter. The description adds value by summarizing key parameters (network, token_address, limit, cursor, sort_by, sort_dir) and explicitly flagging unsupported parameters (inversed, paired_token_address) that would error. It also clarifies aliases (sort_by/order_by, sort_dir/sort) which the schema also documents, but the description's summary helps the agent quickly understand the parameter landscape.

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 the liquidity pools that contain a specific token on one network' with specific output structure ('returned under results with has_next_page and next_cursor'). It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning network-scoping and pointing to getTokenDetails for price queries.

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?

Provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use for which pools hold WETH on ethereum? or liquidity venues for 0x...' and 'For the token's own price use getTokenDetails'. Also gives clear when-not-to-use: 'Network-scoped, so run search first if unsure of the network' and notes unknown addresses return empty results.

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