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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and succeeds: it discloses the risk checks performed (Sourcify verification, proxy, owner type, mint/pause/blacklist/fee functions), the copycat flag, the upstream source (GeckoTerminal), freshness ('at request time'), and an honest caveat ('Heuristics, not an audit'). That caveat is exactly the kind of limitation an agent needs before relying on results.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource and chain, followed by a compact feature/data/safety/cost ordering with no filler sentences. It runs long as a single dense sentence, but nearly every clause adds a distinct useful fact.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description still tells the agent what fields come back (pool DEX, age, liquidity, FDV, 1h buys/sells), the result cap, the data provenance, the cost and the reliability caveat. Nothing material is missing for correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate; 'up to 20' conveys the ceiling for the single limit parameter. But it never clarifies the parameter's type (string) or that values are 1-20, and it does not say the parameter is optional or what the default is.

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?

A specific verb+resource ('newest token launches on BNB Chain') with named DEX sources (four.meme, PancakeSwap v2/v3/Infinity, Uniswap v4). The chain scoping makes it trivially distinguishable from base_launch_feed, solana_launch_feed and launch_feed.

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 clear from the chain and 'newest launches' framing, so an agent knows to pick this for BNB Chain token discovery rather than the base/solana siblings. It also prices itself ('Costs $0.01'), which helps routing decisions. No explicit when-not or named alternative, which keeps it below 5.

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