dex_get_pool_details

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does mention the categories of data returned (reserves, fees, token information), which gives some insight into the response, but it does not state that the operation is read-only, nor does it mention any constraints like supported networks or potential errors. It is adequately transparent for a simple read tool but not rich.

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 a single sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource, and every phrase contributes to understanding. There is no filler or 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?

Given the lack of an output schema, the description should more thoroughly explain what 'detailed information' includes. It names three categories but remains vague about other potential fields (e.g., fees breakdown, price, liquidity). Sibling tools exist for related data, so the agent would need more clarity on the exact response shape.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides for network, poolAddress, and inversed. It does not clarify parameter formats or relationships beyond the schema descriptions.

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 tool's action ('Get') and resource ('detailed information about a specific liquidity pool'), and names key content (reserves, fees, token information). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like dex_get_pool_ohlcv and dex_get_pool_transactions, which focus on historical data or trades.

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 detailed pool information is needed, but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over related tools (e.g., get_pool_reserves, geckoterminal_get_pool). No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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