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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the operation is free, returns normalized categories and an is_agent_launchable flag, and states the on-chain constraint that only launchLabReady pairs can be built. It does not detail output shape or pagination, but for a list endpoint the critical behaviors are covered.

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 tight sentences, zero filler. The first sentence front-loads the action, the free status, and the content; the second sentence adds the most important usage directive. Every phrase 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?

For a simple, two-optional-parameter listing tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what data comes back, why it matters, and when to call it. Minor gaps like exact response fields and pagination exist, but the description is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema: it explains what 'category' values look like with concrete examples (NVDAX/SPYX/TSLAX, pre-stocks, currencies, custom mints) and ties the launchable_only concept to launchLabReady and on-chain buildability, helping an agent understand the filter's real-world meaning.

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 opens with a clear verb and resource: 'List the quote assets a StonkFun coin can be launched against.' It specifies categories, examples, and a distinguishing flag, and the 'Call this BEFORE sizing or preflighting a launch' line separates it from related stonk tools like stonk_preflight and stonk_screener.

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 explicit when-to-use context: call before sizing or preflighting a launch, and the quoteMint must be one of the returned pairs. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives to avoid, but the positional guidance ('BEFORE preflighting') implies the correct workflow clearly for an agent.

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