get_pool_reserves

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It transparently enumerates the returned data (balances, fee, price, TVL, block height) and the scope (every venue). It does not mention read-only behavior explicitly, but that is implied by the nature of querying reserves, and the description is sufficiently transparent for a read-only tool.

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 two sentences, tightly packed with relevant information: what data is returned, the scope, and a usage directive. No redundant or filler content; each sentence earns its place.

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 there is no output schema, the description compensates by fully listing the return fields (balances, fee, price, TVL, block height) and the aggregation across venues. It also provides context on how this data relates to other tools, making it complete for an agent to decide and invoke correctly.

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 the baseline is 3. The description for 'pair' and 'chain' in the schema already provide clear definitions and examples; the tool description adds no further semantic detail beyond what is already in the parameter descriptions.

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 verb 'get' with resource 'pool reserves' and scope 'for a pair on every venue'. It also differentiates from sibling tools by noting this exposes raw data underlying the price, depth, and slippage tools, and directs users who want to do their own calculations.

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?

Explicitly provides when to use this tool: 'use it when you want to do your own maths rather than take ours.' This gives clear guidance on alternatives and the context for selection, satisfying the criteria for usage direction.

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