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

Annotations already cover safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world), so credit goes to the added context: the recency window is approximate, results are newest-first, and the data is flagged as extremely high risk with a required validation step. It does not describe result volume or whether the list can be empty/sparse.

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?

Three short sentences: definition first, risk warning second, filtering advice third. No filler, no restatement of the title, and the most decision-relevant fact (high risk, run get_risk_signals) is front-loaded after the definition.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description never says what a returned token record contains (address, symbol, pool, liquidity, timestamps) or how many rows typically come back. The behavioral warning and ordering are covered, but for an open-world data-fetch tool the return shape is a real gap.

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 chain enum values, limit bounds, and the minLiquidityUsd default are all documented in the schema. The description only adds that these filters exist to "cut noise," which is marginal value over the structured fields. Baseline 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 defines the resource precisely: tokens whose first DEX liquidity pool appeared within roughly the last hour, ordered newest first. That scope is narrower and clearer than vague siblings like get_launched_tokens or get_trending, though the description never names those siblings to contrast itself against.

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?

It gives an explicit mandatory follow-up ("always run get_risk_signals before acting") and a practical noise-reduction tactic (filter by chain and minimum liquidity). What's missing is guidance on when to prefer this over the nearby siblings get_launched_tokens, get_trending, or get_launched_token_market.

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