dex-trending-pools

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses data returned, network support, and that it's free with no key. It does not mention caching or real-time behavior, but overall it's transparent about the tool's read-only nature and the metrics provided.

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 paragraph of 5 sentences, tightly packed with useful information. It front-loads the core purpose and then adds details. Every sentence contributes meaning without 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 the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description fully covers the return values and their interpretation. It includes a useful metric explanation (buy_pressure_24h_pct above 50% = accumulation). The parameters and use cases are well-covered.

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% with all parameters described. The description adds significant value by explaining the buy_pressure_min parameter with an example interpretation and clarifying the meaning of buy_pressure_24h_pct. For other parameters, it does not add much, but the baseline is high.

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 it returns trending DEX liquidity pools with buy/sell pressure data across multiple timeframes. It specifies the source (GeckoTerminal), networks, and returned fields. This verb+resource+scope combination effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like dex-pair-search.

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 explains when to use: spotting early momentum, identifying accumulation, validating signals. It does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives, but the context is clear. A minor improvement would be to note that for specific pool queries, other tools might be more appropriate.

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