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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, non-idempotency, and non-destructiveness, and the description reinforces those by stating it reads or computes only and changes nothing. It adds important context beyond annotations: live factory events, newest-first ordering, per-call pricing, free failed calls, and a free tier, all consistent with the annotations.

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 purpose and scope are front-loaded in a dense but useful first sentence, followed by usage, example, pricing, and safety notes. There is minor redundancy around charging and repeated calls, but otherwise every sentence contributes.

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?

For a read-only tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it lists returned fields, supported chains and DEXes, ordering, usage context, cost model, and safety profile. An agent has everything needed to decide when and how to call it.

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 dex, chain, limit, and blocks thoroughly. The description adds only an example (chain=base) and confirms supported chains, which is marginal 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 states a specific verb and resource: it returns the newest liquidity pools on Uniswap v3/v2 and Aerodrome, read from factory events across five chains. It names the event sources, returned fields, and ordering, making the tool clearly distinguishable from generic chain or pool-lookup siblings.

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 clear use cases: spotting new token listings, watching pool launches, and feeding a new-pair screener, plus a caution to check token_report before trading. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name a direct alternative, so it falls short of the top score.

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