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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two important traits: the data is unvetted/spam-prone and each call costs $0.01 USDC on Base via x402. It also pre-declares the shape of the returned fields. It omits failure behavior, rate limits, and what happens if the underlying log query is capped.

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 compact sentences: purpose/fields first, risk warning second, cost last – front-loaded and largely waste-free. The field enumeration is dense but serves selection, so it earns its 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?

There is no output schema, yet the description enumerates the return payload (token symbol/name/decimals, fee tier, v4 hooks, ETH/WETH/USDC pairing, quote liquidity), which is exactly what an agent needs to judge relevance. Combined with the cost and spam caveats, little is missing for a 2-param, all-optional read tool.

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% – both 'limit' and 'minutes' are fully documented with ranges and defaults in the schema, so baseline is 3. The description only restates 'last N minutes' and adds no format or edge-case guidance beyond the schema (the Arbitrum blocks-cap note oddly lives in the schema, not here).

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 (new trading pools), the chain (Base), the three venues (Uniswap v4/v3, Aerodrome) and the look-back window, plus the exact fields returned. An agent can distinguish this from eth_new_pools, arbitrum_new_pools, polygon_new_pools, etc., solely by chain and venue coverage.

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 implied by the resource (discover recently created pools) but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or named alternative among the many sibling tools. The one instructional signal is the 'Unvetted: many new pools are spam' warning, which tells the agent to treat output with caution rather than when to call it.

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