Get pool risk signals

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It explicitly discloses that the scoring is 'Heuristic, not a prediction' and warns to 'read the flags, don't just trust the score,' which are genuinely useful behavioral caveats. It also lists the stats it pulls, though it does not explicitly confirm whether the call is read-only or describe side effects.

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?

Two compact sentences with the core behavior front-loaded and the important heuristic caveat immediately after. Every phrase adds information; there is no filler or redundant restating of the tool name.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, yet the description covers the main return concepts (stats, score, flags), the heuristic caveat, and the single-pool scope. It does not detail the exact response shape or score scale, but for a two-parameter analytics tool this is close to sufficient.

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 documents network, but poolAddress has no schema description. The phrase 'one pool's stats' adds meaning by clarifying that poolAddress identifies the pool being assessed. However, the description does not specify the expected address format or whether a pool ID/symbol might also be accepted, so it only partially compensates for the missing schema coverage.

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 opens with a specific verb and object: 'Pull one pool's stats' and then says it scores that pool 'against known rug/risk patterns.' This clearly targets a single pool for risk assessment, which distinguishes it from siblings like get_trending_pools and get_pool_trades without needing to name them.

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?

Usage is implied: call this when you need a risk/rug-pattern read on one specific pool. However, the description does not explicitly mention sibling tools or state when not to use this tool, so the agent must infer the selection context.

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