get_top_pools_by_dex

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions the return format (formatted table with columns) but does not disclose other behavioral traits such as read-only nature, rate limits, or error conditions. The description adds minimal transparency beyond what is obvious from the name.

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 concise and well-structured, with a single purpose sentence followed by a clear Args list. Every sentence adds value; no redundancy or wasted words.

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 5 parameters, an output schema, and no annotations, the description covers purpose, parameters, and return format adequately. It lacks details on error handling or data freshness, but for a straightforward query tool, it is sufficiently complete.

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 0%, but the description's Args block explains each parameter fully, including defaults and allowed values for sort. This adds significant meaning that the schema lacks, enabling the agent to understand parameter semantics effectively.

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: querying top pools for a specific network and DEX on GeckoTerminal and returning a formatted table. It includes default values for network and DEX, and the phrase 'for a specific network and DEX' distinguishes it from siblings like get_top_pools_by_network.

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 network and DEX are known but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_top_pools_by_network or get_trending_pools. No exclusions or alternative suggestions are provided, leaving guidance mostly implicit.

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