Per-venue live pool prices for one pair

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that reads are from pool state, mentions the gross spread caveat, and notes API key requirements. However, it states data is read 'at a stated block number' but the schema has no block parameter, creating a confusing discrepancy. This undermines transparency despite other useful disclosures.

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 long but every sentence earns its place: it front-loads the core purpose, lists returns, gives usage guidance, includes a vital caveat about gross spreads, and provides auth details. It is well-structured with no filler or repetition.

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 and lack of output schema, the description covers return values, usage context, spread caveats, and authentication. The only notable gap is the misleading reference to a 'stated block number' that doesn't correspond to any parameter, slightly reducing completeness.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal parameter value, only reinforcing pair order via 'quote token per 1 base token'. Critically, it introduces a non-existent 'stated block number' that is not in the schema, confusing parameter semantics. This negative contribution lowers the score below the baseline.

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 function: 'Live price of one trading pair at EVERY DEX venue on a chain that holds a pool for it'. It uses a specific verb and resource scope, and explicitly distinguishes from get_spreads by advising 'For ranking opportunities across a whole chain, use get_spreads instead.' This makes the purpose unambiguous and differentiates it from siblings.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this when you need the actual number a swap would price against on a specific venue, or to compare one pair across venues.' It also names an alternative: 'For ranking opportunities across a whole chain, use get_spreads instead.' This clearly scopes usage and directs to the correct alternative.

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