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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so: per-call pricing ($0.05 from shop credits, top-ups paused), free on failure or empty result, and truthful 'checked:false, never guessed' semantics for unfinished checks. It also enumerates every scoring input (honeypot, taxes, mint, owner balance, proxy, LP lock, top-10 holders), which an agent can rely on when interpreting the verdict.

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 is front-loaded in the first clause and the dense enumeration of signals is packed into a single informative sentence. Slightly long and run-on, but nearly every clause adds decision-relevant information such as price, failure policy and the checked flag.

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, so the description must describe the return shape, and it does: score 0-100, four verdict labels, and the accompanying metrics (liquidity, 24h volume, buys/sells, age) plus the checked flag. Nothing an agent needs in order to call this tool or interpret the result is missing.

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% and the schema already documents defaults and ranges, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real value by listing the legal chain values in context and framing what the liquidity and window filters select from (newest pools in a time window above a liquidity floor).

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: the newest DEX pools on a chain, each with a safety verdict. 'Newest pools' as a discovery surface is clearly distinguishable from sibling verdict tools such as token_verdict or token_verdict_batch, which operate on a given token.

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 supplies concrete operating context: default chain base, the eight supported chains, the 1h/6h/24h window, and the 404/free outcome when no pool qualifies. It stops short of naming an alternative tool or stating when not to call this one, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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