Get pools for a token

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the sorting behavior (by 24h volume descending) but does not mention potential pagination, rate limits, or behavior for invalid/unknown token addresses. It adds some behavioral context but is not rich.

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 that communicates the purpose and key behavior without any wasted words. It is appropriately concise and well structured.

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 list tool with a schema covering parameters and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains what the tool does and the main behavior (volume sorting). It does not describe the return format explicitly, but that is implied by 'list all pools', which is adequate given the tool's simplicity.

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 coverage is 100%, and both parameters already have descriptions. The description adds minor clarification by referring to 'token mint/contract address', which mirrors the schema. It does not add significant meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb 'List' and clearly identifies the resource: 'all DEX pools/pairs for a given token mint/contract address'. It also adds a distinguishing detail ('sorted by 24h volume descending') that sets it apart from sibling tools like get_pair (likely a single pair) and search_pairs (search-based).

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 token address and want all its pools. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternatives (e.g., use get_pair for a specific pool). This is implied usage rather than clear guidance with exclusions.

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