dex_get_dex_pools

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only describes the purpose and required workflow; it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, how pagination works, what data fields are returned, or any rate limits. This is a significant gap, especially given the absence of an output schema.

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 short sentences that immediately state the tool's purpose and then provide the required usage sequence. There is no redundant information or fluff, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

The tool has 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description gives a basic workflow and purpose but omits details about return structure, pagination behavior, and how it relates to similar tools like dex_get_network_pools. It is adequate for an experienced agent but lacks completeness for an AI agent needing full operational context.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage for all six parameters, including the 'dex' parameter description referencing dex_get_network_dexes. The description adds the explicit step of using dex_get_networks first, but this is marginal extra meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Get pools from a specific DEX on a network', which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like dex_get_network_pools (which fetches pools for a whole network) and dex_get_pool_details (which fetches a single pool) by emphasizing the 'specific DEX' scope.

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 explicitly instructs the user to first call dex_get_networks, then dex_get_network_dexes to find valid DEX IDs, providing clear prerequisite steps. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives such as dex_get_network_pools, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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