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

With zero annotations the description carries the full burden, and it discloses the defining behavioral trait well: this is a paid call ($0.005 USDC via x402), so the agent knows each invocation incurs cost. It also states what comes back (risk scores, market data). It still omits failure/payment-error handling and rate-limit behavior, keeping it below a 5.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the resource ('Paid fresh-token feed') and packs cost, scope, and return info without wasted words. Slightly info-dense but every clause 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?

No output schema and no annotations exist, so the description must convey enough to call correctly. It names return content but gives no sense of the response shape (fields, ordering, pagination) or what a payment failure looks like, leaving gaps for a tool with none of the structured support.

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% and all three params (count, network, min_liquidity) are documented in the schema, so baseline is 3. The description adds 'liquidity pairs' framing but no extra meaning about how count/network/min_liquidity interact beyond the schema.

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 resource (fresh-token feed) with concrete scope ('newest tokens creating liquidity pairs') and additions ('instant risk scores', 'market data'). It is distinguishable from siblings like scv_honeypot or scv_scan, but it doesn't explicitly name what separates it from those risk-oriented siblings, leaving that to inference.

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 only implied: 'fresh-token feed' suggests polling for new listings, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no named alternatives (e.g., scv_scan for deeper analysis). The agent must infer this is the discovery/monitoring entry point.

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