dex_get_network_dexes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the basic read action. It does not disclose pagination behavior, output format, potential empty results, rate limits, or error cases. The schema hints at pagination via page/limit, but the description itself adds little beyond the one-liner.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no filler or redundancy. Every word serves a purpose, and the prerequisite instruction is efficiently integrated.

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 description covers the essential purpose and prerequisite, and the schema fully documents parameters. However, there is no output schema and no description of what the response looks like, whether pagination is automatic, or how results are ordered by default. For a simple read/list tool this is adequate but leaves gaps about return semantics.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters including example values for network. The description adds the prerequisite relationship to dex_get_networks, but this is also reflected in the network parameter's schema description. No additional semantic value is added for page, sort, limit, or orderBy.

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 states a specific action ('Get available DEXes') and a specific resource ('on a specific network'), clearly indicating what the tool does. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like dex_get_network_pools or dex_get_dex_pools, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 gives an explicit prerequisite: 'First call dex_get_networks to see valid network IDs.' This provides clear sequential guidance. It does not mention when to use this tool over alternatives or exclusion criteria, so it stops short of a full when/when-not breakdown.

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