check_confirmed_swaps_on_pool

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

Discloses it reads finalized on-chain state via eth_getLogs, is not a mempool tool, and only works on Polygon. Despite no annotations, the description fully conveys the behavioral traits (read-only, confirmed blocks, chain constraint).

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?

Concise yet complete: two short paragraphs, front-loaded with purpose, then behavior, then usage guidance, then parameter details. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Covers tool purpose, input parameters, output (total count + breakdown), chain constraint, and relationship to sibling tool. No output schema, but description sufficiently explains return value. Complete for its complexity.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description explains each parameter: pool_address as the Uniswap v3 pool address, chain as only polygon, lookback_blocks as number of recent confirmed blocks with default 600 (~20 min on Polygon). Adds context and default meaning beyond schema.

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?

Description clearly states it queries confirmed blocks for Uniswap v3 Swap events on a given pool, returns total swap count and breakdown by 'to' address. It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tool check_pending_swaps_on_pool (confirmed vs pending) and specifies Polygon only.

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 explicit guidance: use to establish ground-truth swap volume and compare with check_pending_swaps_on_pool to diagnose mempool coverage issues. Also clearly states what it is NOT (mempool tool), aiding correct invocation.

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