dex_get_network_pools

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, how results are returned, pagination behavior, or error handling. It only restates sorting capabilities that are already implied by the 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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose label 'PRIMARY POOL FUNCTION'. Every word earns its place, with no unnecessary filler or repetition.

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 five parameters, no output schema, and annotations. The description gives a clear overview but does not detail return value structure, pagination behavior, or edge cases. It is minimally sufficient for a simple list tool, but more context could be added about what 'pool data' includes and how results are ordered.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds a little context by mentioning sorting by volume, price, or transactions, which maps to some orderBy enum values, but it does not explain all fields or pagination parameters beyond what the schema already provides.

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 (get), the resource (top liquidity pools), and the scope (specific network, sorted by volume, price, or transactions). It distinguishes from siblings by labeling itself as the 'PRIMARY POOL FUNCTION' and 'main way to get pool data', though it does not explicitly name alternative tools.

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 clear context that this is the primary way to get pool data, suggesting it should be used by default for pool queries. It does not provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance or name alternatives, but the 'main way' phrasing provides a strong usage signal.

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