Get a single DEX pair

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read-only operation ('Get') and suggests comprehensive output ('full detail'), but it does not describe the return format, error behavior, or any potential limitations. This is adequate for a simple get, but gaps remain.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence: 'Get full detail for one specific DEX pair/pool by its pair address.' Every word contributes to conveying the action, object, and key qualifier, with no unnecessary 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?

Although the tool is simple, the description lacks context for correct selection among many sibling tools ('search_pairs', 'get_token_pairs', 'get_tokens'). It also does not explain what 'full detail' includes, and there is no output schema to provide that information. This creates ambiguity for an agent deciding when to use this tool over alternatives.

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 input schema already provides full descriptions for both parameters (pairId and chainId) with 100% coverage. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema already states, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('DEX pair/pool'), and scope ('one specific', 'by its pair address'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_pairs and get_token_pairs by focusing on a single pair retrieval rather than searching or listing.

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 usage: when you have a known pair address and need full detail for that specific pair. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or name sibling tools, but the context is clear that this is for retrieving a single pair, not for searching or comparing multiple pairs.

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