dex_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the search spans all networks and covers tokens, pools, and DEXes. However, it does not describe result format, pagination, matching behavior, or any rate limits. This is minimal but acceptable for a read-only search tool.

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 primary action and scope, followed by a practical use case. Every word adds value, with no redundant or filler content.

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 simple one-parameter search tool, the description provides sufficient context: what it searches, across what scope, and when to use it. It doesn't explain output structure, but the absence of an output schema and the tool's simplicity make this acceptable. The mention of 'starting point' helps integrate with the broader toolset.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage with 'Search term (token name, symbol, or address)'. The description repeats this information ('by name, symbol, or address') without adding new meaning. Given the schema's high coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 searches across ALL networks for tokens, pools, and DEXes by name, symbol, or address. The verb 'search' and specific resource types ('tokens, pools, and DEXes') make the purpose explicit. It also distinguishes itself from sibling network-specific tools by emphasizing the cross-network 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 provides clear usage guidance: 'Good starting point when you don't know the specific network.' This explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool and implies that network-specific tools are preferable when the network is known. It lacks an explicit naming of alternatives, but the context is strong.

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