dexscreenertokeninfoagent_get_token_pairs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: the tool retrieves comprehensive, real-time data from DexScreener, and requires both chain and token address. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like rate limits, error conditions, pagination, or authentication needs, which would be valuable for a data-fetching 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 appropriately sized (4 sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence adds value: purpose, data scope, source/update frequency, and parameter requirements. It could be slightly more concise by combining some clauses, but there's minimal waste.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description does a decent job for a 2-parameter tool. It covers purpose, data source, and parameter requirements well. However, it lacks details on return format (what fields like 'price, volume, liquidity' actually contain), potential data freshness issues, or error handling, which would improve completeness for a data retrieval tool.

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 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters (chain identifier examples, token address purpose). The description adds marginal value by emphasizing that both parameters are mandatory ('You must specify both...') and that the token address must be exact, but doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what the schema offers.

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 specific action ('Get all trading pairs'), resource ('for a specific token across decentralized exchanges'), and scope ('by chain and token address'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'dexscreenertokeninfoagent_get_specific_pair_info' (which likely gets details for one pair) and 'dexscreenertokeninfoagent_search_pairs' (which likely searches more broadly).

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 clear context for when to use this tool: when you need comprehensive pair data for a specific token on a specific blockchain. It implicitly contrasts with siblings by focusing on token-centric pair retrieval rather than pair-specific info or broader searches. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives.

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