get_token_pools

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool's behavior by specifying it returns a formatted markdown table with sorted results, which adds useful context beyond basic querying. However, it lacks details on error handling, rate limits, or data freshness, which are important for a tool interacting with blockchain data.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose, followed by parameter details and return format in a structured manner. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 (querying multiple blockchain versions) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is fairly complete. It explains the purpose, parameters, and return format in detail. However, it could improve by mentioning potential limitations like network dependencies or default behaviors, but it covers the essentials well.

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 description adds significant meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% coverage. It explains the 'token_address' parameter with an example and clarifies the 'ctx' parameter's purpose for logging and error handling, compensating well for the schema's lack of descriptions. This provides clear semantics for both parameters.

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 specific action ('Query all Uniswap V2, V3, and V4 pools/pairs for a specific token') and the resource ('token'), distinguishing it from siblings by specifying it covers all versions (V2-V4) rather than individual versions like the sibling tools. The verb 'query' is precise and the scope is well-defined.

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 context by specifying it's for querying pools for a token across multiple Uniswap versions, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the sibling tools (e.g., get_token_pools_v2, v3, v4) or provide alternatives. However, the clear scope (all versions) offers some implicit guidance.

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