Get a pair

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states 'Burns 1 SERA', which is a critical cost side effect. It also promises 'Full detail' as the return behavior. It does not mention error handling or other potential side effects, but for a read-like operation with a fee, this is sufficient.

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-loading the primary purpose and then disclosing the fee. Every word earns its place; no fluff or redundant phrasing.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core aspects: what it does, how to identify the pair, and the cost. It does not detail the return structure, but 'full detail' implies comprehensive data. Missing explicit guidance on error cases is a minor gap, but overall it is adequate for an agent to call it correctly.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying the accepted formats: 'id, symbol (e.g. WKND or $WKND), or contract address', including a concrete example of symbol notation. This goes beyond the schema's terse 'Pair id, symbol, or address.' and helps the agent format the input correctly.

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 states a specific action: retrieving full detail for a single pair, identified by id, symbol, or contract address. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like seranox_list_pairs (which lists all pairs) and seranox_risk_scan (which scans risks). The verb 'get' and resource 'pair' are precise, and the input formats are specified.

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 usage: when you need full detail for a specific pair rather than a list or other operations. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context 'Full detail for one pair' is clear enough for an agent to infer the right scenario.

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