get_v3_reserves

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a read operation and details the fee-tier scanning behavior, which is useful. However, it does not mention return format, error handling, network dependencies, or whether it mutates anything (though 'Reads' implies no mutation). The description adds some value but lacks comprehensive behavioral context.

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 well-structured with two clear paragraphs: the first states the core purpose, the second details parameter semantics and default behavior. It is concise, uses backticks for parameter names, and avoids fluff. It could be slightly tighter, but it earns its length by packing necessary information.

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 covers the main behavior and parameters well, but since there is no output schema, it should describe the return format (e.g., an array of pool objects with addresses and reserve amounts). It only says 'every pool that exists is returned,' leaving the structure ambiguous. Also, it does not mention potential errors (e.g., when a pool doesn't exist). For a read tool with no output schema, this is a notable gap.

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 thoroughly explains token_a/token_b (addresses or known symbols, mainnet) and fee (hundredths of a bip, examples, and the full behavior when omitted, including the list of tiers checked). This goes well beyond the bare schema, giving an agent everything it needs to populate parameters correctly.

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 ('Reads'), the resource ('on-chain reserves (pool token balances) of Uniswap V3 pool(s)'), and explicitly mentions 'Uniswap V3', which distinguishes it from v1/v2 siblings. It also clarifies what 'reserves' means, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 guidance on how to use the fee parameter (including the default behavior when omitted), but it does not explicitly explain when to choose this tool over get_v1_reserves or get_v2_reserves. The name and the explicit 'Uniswap V3' reference imply the use case, but there is no direct comparison or 'use this for V3' statement.

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