get_v2_reserves

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly frames this as a read-only operation ('Reads') and adds that token_a/token_b can be mainnet addresses or known symbols. It does not disclose potential revert behavior, token ordering effects, or return format, but the simple on-chain read nature is adequately conveyed.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The first establishes what the tool does, and the second explains parameter semantics. Every 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?

For a simple two-parameter read-only tool, the description is nearly complete: it identifies the operation, the pair version, the network (mainnet), and accepted token inputs. Minor gaps remain around token ordering and what exactly is returned, but the absence of an output schema is mitigated by the clear statement that reserves are read.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does: 'token_a'/'token_b' are explicitly said to be mainnet ERC20 contract addresses or known symbols, with examples 'WETH' and 'USDC'. This adds essential meaning beyond the bare schema properties, though it leaves ordering and normalization details unstated.

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 names a specific verb ('Reads'), a clear resource ('on-chain reserves of a Uniswap V2 pair'), and the exact method used ('getReserves()'). It is immediately distinguishable from the V1/V3 siblings because the pair version is explicit.

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 when to use the tool by scoping it to Uniswap V2 pairs, which an agent can infer from the sibling names. However, it does not explicitly state 'use this for V2 pairs, use get_v1_reserves or get_v3_reserves for other versions' or give exclusion criteria.

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