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

Annotations already declare read-only, open-world, non-idempotent. The description goes further by disclosing the per-call price ($0.01 USDC via x402 or prepaid credits), the free-trial availability, the safety pre-screen categories, and the sort order — real behavioral context beyond structured fields.

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 core criteria (recency, liquidity, ordering, screening, output fields, chains) are front-loaded before the pricing note. It is dense and slightly run-on, but every clause carries information an agent would otherwise lack.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary; the description covers chain coverage, filtering defaults, screening content and cost. Only the absence of sibling routing keeps it from being fully complete.

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 chain, limit, maxAgeMinutes and minLiquidityUsd with ranges and defaults. The description restates the key defaults ($10k liquidity, 1h/24h window) as illustrative values but adds no format or edge-case guidance 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?

States a specific resource and scope: brand-new token launches whose first DEX pool opened within the last hour, filtered by liquidity, newest first. The scope is precise enough to separate it from token-24h, token-safety or token-report, but it never names a sibling to disambiguate explicitly.

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?

The scope implies when to use it (wanting freshly launched pools rather than established tokens), but there is no explicit 'use this instead of X when Y' routing and no stated exclusions or prerequisites. An agent must infer the use case from the filter description.

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