Search DEX pairs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It adds the scope note and implies a read-only search, but does not disclose output format, pagination, or other behavioral traits. For a search tool, this is average but lacks depth.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and each sentence earns its place. The example and scope note are concise and valuable.

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 one-parameter search tool, the description covers the essential aspects: what it searches, how to search, and scope. It lacks explicit output details, but the phrase 'trading pairs matching free text' implies the return type. Given no output schema, this is mostly complete with minor gaps.

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%, and the description's example ('SOL/USDC') largely repeats what the schema already says. No additional semantic value is provided beyond the schema, justifying the baseline score of 3.

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 searches DEX Screener for trading pairs matching free text, with examples. It has a specific verb ('Search'), resource ('DEX Screener for trading pairs'), and a useful scope note ('Not scoped to one chain'), but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_pair or get_token_pairs.

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?

Provides clear context for when to use (searching by free text, e.g. token symbol or pair) and a scope note. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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