blockrun_dex

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and non-destructive, so the description does not need to cover safety. It adds useful context about being real-time and free, but does not disclose response format, pagination, rate limits, or external API dependencies. This is acceptable given the annotations but not rich.

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 well-organized with a purpose statement, bulleted use cases, and examples that are easy to parse. The 'FREE - no payment required' line is somewhat extraneous but does not hurt, and the examples justify their place.

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 simple read-only nature, optional parameters, and full schema coverage, the description covers the main usage scenarios and gives enough example invocations for an agent to call the tool. It lacks output-shape guidance, but that is less critical for a data query tool with no output schema.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents chain, query, token, and symbol. The examples add small usage clarity but mostly restate what the schema already says, so the description adds little semantic value beyond the structured fields.

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 the tool gets real-time DEX data from DexScreener and lists specific use cases like token prices, liquidity, volume, and finding pairs. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like blockrun_defi or blockrun_price, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 'Use for' section gives concrete contexts for when the tool applies, and the examples show typical invocation patterns. It does not explicitly say when not to use it or name alternative sibling tools, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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