get_onchain_dex_pool_endpoints

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes what data is included (e.g., liquidity data, trading pairs, OHLCV) but lacks behavioral details: no mention of permissions needed, rate limits, pagination, error handling, or response format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 overly verbose and poorly structured. It starts with a clear purpose but devolves into a run-on list of analytics features (e.g., 'DEXScreener-style metrics', 'options trading analytics') that don't add value beyond the initial category definition. Sentences are not front-loaded with essential 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?

Given the tool's complexity (broad analytics scope) and lack of annotations/output schema, the description is incomplete. It catalogs data types but omits critical context: how results are returned, any limitations, or error scenarios. For a tool with rich data potential, this leaves too many unknowns for an agent.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (empty schema). With no parameters to document, the baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter gaps, so it meets expectations.

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: 'Get all endpoints in the "On-Chain DEX & Pool Analytics" category.' It specifies the resource (endpoints) and category scope, distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_defi_protocol_endpoints' or 'get_market_and_price_endpoints'. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings, so it's not a perfect 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lists many analytics capabilities but doesn't specify prerequisites, exclusions, or compare to sibling tools like 'get_defi_protocol_endpoints' for similar data. Usage is implied by the category name only.

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