hyre-pool-recommend

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the AI nature and a cost of $0.008, but fails to disclose whether the operation is read-only, any required permissions, rate limits, or side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 a single concise sentence with a parenthetical cost note, making it front-loaded and free of wasted words. It is appropriately short for a simple tool, though it could have been slightly more structured by moving the cost to a separate attribute.

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?

For a tool with 4 optional parameters, no required fields, and no output schema, the description provides a high-level indication of the return ('best pool + strategy') but lacks detail on response format or how this tool fits with siblings. It is adequate for simple use cases but not fully comprehensive.

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?

The schema already provides 100% description coverage for all four parameters, including enums and defaults. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond hinting that base/quote form a token pair and that 'strategy' is part of the recommendation. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 a specific action (AI recommendation) and resource (pool for a token pair), and mentions 'best pool + strategy' which distinguishes it from sibling hyre-pools (which likely just lists pools). It does not explicitly name alternatives, so it does not fully achieve a 5, but the purpose is unmistakable.

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 implies usage when a user wants a pool recommendation for a token pair, but it gives no explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to sibling tools like hyre-pools. There are no exclusions or alternative scenarios, leaving the usage context implicit rather than explicit.

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