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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states 'Factual observation only, NOT a recommendation. NOT financial advice,' which clearly sets expectations about the tool's output being informational. It also discloses the risk profile of new pools. While it does not explicitly say the tool is read-only, 'observation' implies no side effects. This is adequate for a simple listing tool.

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 description is concise and well-organized, front-loading the core purpose and returning fields, then adding necessary risk warnings and usage hints. Every sentence contributes value; there is no fluff. It is slightly longer than strictly necessary due to the disclaimers, but those are relevant for user safety.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers what the tool returns, the source (GeckoTerminal), the risk warning, and the recommended follow-up action (token-risk). It is complete enough for an agent to know what to expect and how to invoke it. The only minor gap is not describing the exact output structure, but the field list suffices.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, fully documenting the limit parameter with range and default. The description repeats this ('Optional ?limit (1-20, default 15)') but adds no new meaning beyond the schema. Per the rubric, a baseline of 3 applies when schema coverage is high, so this score is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool lists the newest Solana liquidity pools from GeckoTerminal and enumerates the fields returned (name, base mint, creation time, age, liquidity, 24h volume, price change). It is specific and unambiguous, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like solmachina_trending_tokens, which might also return pool-like data. Still, 'newest pools' is distinct enough.

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 description provides usage context by warning that new pools are unvetted and high-risk and recommends pairing each mint with /v1/token-risk before acting. It also mentions the optional limit parameter. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to choose this over trending_tokens or token_risk). The guidance is implied rather than explicit, so it falls short of a full 'when to use' specification.

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