get_pairs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It accurately conveys a read-only fetch operation scoped to an exchange, which is useful. But it does not disclose return shape, pagination, or exchange-specific caveats, though those are relatively minor for this simple tool.

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 one front-loaded sentence that immediately states the operation and scope, followed by a compact list of supported exchanges. There is no filler, vague phrasing, or unnecessary repetition.

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 one-parameter read-only tool, the description covers purpose, scope, and valid exchange values. The only notable gap is the lack of an output schema or explicit statement of return format, but the phrase 'tradable pairs' makes the expected result type reasonably inferable.

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 fully documents the only parameter, 'exchange', including the same list of supported values. The description adds no semantic information beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 verb ('Fetch'), a clear resource ('all tradable pairs'), and the scope ('specified exchange'). It naturally distinguishes this tool from siblings like get_price, compare_prices, and get_top_ranking, which address different data needs.

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 makes the intended use clear: fetch all pairs for a supported exchange, and the supported-exchange list adds context. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over sibling tools or when it should not be used, so some routing is left to inference.

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