get_best_venue

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not mention side effects, permissions, rate limits, or whether the tool is read-only. It is likely a read-only query tool, but this is not disclosed, leaving the agent without full transparency.

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, using only two sentences to convey the core functionality and expected outputs. It avoids unnecessary detail and is easy to parse.

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?

The description mentions key outputs (cross-venue spread in bps, fee-adjusted arbitrage spread) but does not specify the exact structure of the return value. Since there is no output schema, this is sufficient for a simple query tool, though slightly more detail would improve 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?

The schema covers both parameters with descriptions (pair as SYM/SYM, chain with enum and default), providing 100% coverage. The descriptions are minimal but adequate. The main description adds no additional per-parameter context, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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: identifying the cheapest DEX to buy and the most profitable to sell for a given pair, while also providing cross-venue spread and fee-adjusted arbitrage spread. This is specific and distinguishes it from similar sibling tools like get_dex_spread or find_arbitrage.

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 it is for smart order routing and comparing venues, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives such as get_dex_spread or get_pool_reserves. The differentiation is 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.