pons_pair_token_economics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure burden. It only lists returned economics fields and does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether special authorization is needed, or any limitations or edge-case behavior. For a query tool this is a meaningful 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?

The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the core resource and then enumerates the key economics fields. It contains no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail.

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?

This is a low-complexity tool with one required parameter, no enums, and no nested objects. The description provides enough information to select the tool and invoke it with a pair-token address. Exact output formatting and deeper meanings of terms like 'phantom quote' are not documented, but the core selection and invocation context is present.

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 schema already fully documents the single parameter as 'Pair token contract address', giving 100% schema description coverage. The description adds useful context by clarifying that these are pair-token economics from the factory and giving example pair types (ETH or USDG pairs), but it does not add format, constraints, or additional parameter detail.

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 names a specific resource ('pair-token economics from the factory') and lists concrete data fields: approved status, phantom quote, graduation threshold, and decimals. This makes the tool's intent clear and separates it from generic token tools such as pons_get_token, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieves'.

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 when to use the tool: when you need pair-token economics such as approved status, phantom quote, graduation threshold, or decimals. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or say when not to use it, leaving some selection burden on the agent.

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