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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses cost (0.001 USDC/call), a rate limit (3/day/IP free trial), and the auth/payment handshake on HTTP 402 including the retry-with-tx-hash step. These are exactly the operational traits an agent cannot infer from the schema.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the price and trial quota before the functional description. Every clause earns its place, though the payment sentence is compressed enough that the accepts[] reference assumes prior x402 familiarity.

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?

With no output schema, the description still conveys the return payload (new pools plus a per-token bytecode risk score), and it covers cost and payment recovery. It omits ordering/pagination behavior for the pool feed, a minor gap given limit and since are schema-documented.

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 already 83%, so the schema documents dex, limit, since, minRisk and maxRisk. The description adds value the schema lacks: that all filters are optional and, importantly, what the undocumented 'payment' parameter is for (the tx hash supplied after settling the 402 terms).

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 and scope: 'Newest liquidity pools created on Base (Uniswap v3/v4, Aerodrome) with a bytecode risk score per new token.' An agent immediately knows this is a new-pool feed with risk scoring, distinct from static risk tools. It stops short of naming the overlapping siblings (liquidity_risk, token_scan) to route between them.

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?

Gives clear operational context: pay-per-call pricing, a free trial quota, that filters are optional, and the exact 402 recovery path ('pay the accepts[] terms then retry with the payment tx hash'). It does not state when to prefer this over liquidity_risk or token_scan, so the alternative-selection guidance is absent.

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