geckoterminal_search_pools

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry transparency. It discloses cross-network scope but does not mention whether results are paginated, the response format, or any rate limits or auth requirements. For a read-only search, the safety profile is implied but not explicit, leaving a notable gap.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently conveys the action, target, and search criteria, earning its place with zero 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 no output schema or annotations, the description is minimal. It covers the basic purpose but lacks usage guidance and behavioral details such as pagination and result format. For a simple search tool, this is adequate but leaves room for improvement in guiding the agent through edge cases.

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% and the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds the nuance 'across all networks' and lists searchable fields, but these largely repeat the schema descriptions (e.g., 'query (token name, symbol, or address)'). No additional semantics are provided for pagination or network optionality.

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 verb ('Search'), resource ('pools'), and scope ('across all networks'), and specifies searchable fields (token name, symbol, or address). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like geckoterminal_get_pool (specific pool) and dex_get_network_pools (network-specific).

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 clear use case: find pools by token identifier across all networks. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the context is sufficient for an agent to choose this over similar tools like dex_search or geckoterminal_top_pools.

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