get_pool_reserves

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 only restates the tool's name without explaining output format, units, error conditions, or the BSC default network mentioned in the schema. The verb 'get' implies a read operation, but the description adds no transparency beyond that.

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, efficient sentence with no filler words, front-loading the core action. It is appropriately sized for a simple getter and every word earns its place, though it sacrifices depth for brevity.

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 tool has four parameters and no output schema, the description should clarify what the returned reserves represent and any limitations. It does not mention the BSC default (from the schema), the optional dex parameter, or what 'reserves' means in terms of format. This is inadequate for a tool with medium complexity, leaving important context unexplained.

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 provides complete descriptions for all four parameters (token addresses, DEX, network with default). The tool description itself contributes no parameter semantics, but since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing beyond what the schema already explains.

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') and the resource ('reserves in a liquidity pool'), using a specific verb and target. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_dex_liquidity or dex_get_pool_details, which may perform similar functions. This fits the 'clear but no sibling differentiation' level.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks any context about supported DEXs, prerequisites, or distinction from other pool-related tools. This is essentially no usage guidance.

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