dex_get_token_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 disclosing behavioral traits. It does not mention pagination (page/limit), sorting options (orderBy/sort), reordering behavior, or pairing filters. The only addition is a high-level use case, leaving the agent unaware of key behaviors such as default sorting by volume or the ability to filter by paired token.

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, front-loaded with the action and resource. It avoids redundant detail and every word earns its place, providing a quick and clear summary without unnecessary fluff.

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?

For a tool with 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the return structure (e.g., what fields a liquidity pool object contains), how sorting/filtering parameters affect results, or how to navigate through pages. This leaves significant gaps for an agent trying to use the tool 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 coverage is 100%, so parameter descriptions are already complete. The description adds slight semantic value by emphasizing 'specific token' (maps to tokenAddress) and 'liquidity' (related to volume_usd ordering), but it does not elaborate on optional parameters like pairedWith or reorder. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage without adding much extra meaning.

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 liquidity pools') and the specific resource ('containing a specific token'). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like dex_get_network_pools or dex_get_dex_pools by focusing on token-based lookup, and the phrase 'where a token is traded' adds practical context. This is a precise, non-tautological statement of purpose.

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 a use case ('Great for finding where a token is traded and its liquidity') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like geckoterminal_token_pools or dex_get_dex_pools. It lacks exclusions or direct comparisons to sibling tools, so the guidance is only implicit rather than actionable.

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