get_token_pools_v4

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 describing the query action and output format (markdown table with specific columns). However, it lacks details on potential errors, rate limits, authentication needs, or whether this is a read-only operation. The mention of 'ctx' parameter for 'logging and error handling' hints at some behavioral aspects but is vague.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. Each subsequent section (Parameters, Returns) adds necessary details without redundancy. The text is appropriately sized, with no wasted sentences, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 blockchain data with one parameter) and no annotations or output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, parameters, and return format in detail. However, it could improve by addressing behavioral aspects like error handling or performance, which are relevant for a tool interacting with external APIs.

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 fully documents the 'token_address' parameter with its purpose, data type, and an example, and explains the 'ctx' parameter (not in the schema) for context handling. This compensates for the low schema coverage and provides clear parameter semantics.

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 V4 pools for a specific token') and the output format ('return as a formatted markdown table'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying V4 version, unlike generic 'get_token_pools' or version-specific siblings like 'get_token_pools_v2' and 'get_token_pools_v3'.

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 'Uniswap V4 pools' and 'for a specific token', which suggests when to use this tool (for V4 pools with a token address). However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives like 'get_token_pools_v2' or 'get_token_pools_v3', nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites beyond the token address parameter.

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