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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral load; it implies a read-only market-data lookup and lists which data dimensions come back, but says nothing about data freshness, rate limits, or auth requirements. It adds useful context about what appears in results without covering operational traits.

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?

Two compact sentences that front-load the resource and the returned fields, then close with the use case. No wasted words, though the field enumeration is partly redundant with the output schema.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be spelled out, but the callable surface is under-documented: the key discriminator 'kind' is undefined on either side, which matters for a tool whose whole point is trending vs. new pools.

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, and it does not: the 'kind' parameter (trending vs. newly launched) is never explained, 'limit' has no stated range or default, and 'network' values are only loosely implied by the chain list ('Base, Solana, Ethereum, BSC and more') rather than tied to the parameter.

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?

States a specific resource (trending or newly launched DEX pools) and enumerates the returned fields (token, price, FDV, liquidity, 24h volume, price change, buy/sell counts). It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like dex_pairs or dex_volumes, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

'Use to spot new memecoins and momentum early' gives an intended use case, but there is no statement of when to prefer this over dex_pairs/dex_volumes or when not to use it. Usage is implied rather than directed.

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