ref_finance_get_pools

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers limited behavioral insight. It mentions prioritization ('higher liquidity and better rates') which hints at ranking logic, but doesn't disclose critical details like rate limits, authentication needs, error conditions, pagination, or what 'search' entails (e.g., returns all pools or top results). For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 two concise sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds prioritization context. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and low schema description coverage (0%), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return format (e.g., pool list structure), error handling, authentication, and operational constraints. For a search tool with 3 parameters and nested objects, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to use it effectively.

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%, so the description must compensate but adds minimal parameter context. It mentions 'two tokens' aligning with tokenA and tokenB, but doesn't explain their structure, the networkId parameter's purpose, or how tokens are identified (contractId vs symbol). With 3 parameters (2 required) and nested objects, the description fails to provide meaningful guidance beyond the schema's structure.

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 action ('Search for liquidity pools') and resource ('on the Ref Finance exchange contract') with specific criteria ('based on two tokens'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like ref_finance_execute_swap by focusing on pool discovery rather than trading. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other search tools like search_near_fungible_tokens beyond the Ref Finance context.

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 looking for liquidity pools with two specific tokens, prioritizing better rates. It suggests an alternative (ref_finance_execute_swap) indirectly by focusing on search rather than execution, but lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or comparison with other search tools like search_near_fungible_tokens.

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