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

Annotations already signal read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations by disclosing the $0.001 USDC cost, the byte-identical REST endpoint, and the promoted-token semantics. No contradiction exists.

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 compact and information-dense: it states the resource, returned fields, the key distinction, cost, and endpoint equivalence in a few clauses. Every element earns its place, and the main semantic is front-loaded.

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 list endpoint with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description is complete. It tells the agent what data is returned, what the call costs, and that it mirrors a specific REST endpoint.

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 for the single `limit` parameter is 100%, so the schema fully explains the parameter. The description only references `limit=20` in the endpoint example, adding no extra parameter meaning, which keeps this at the baseline.

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 identifies the resource as tokens currently promoted on DexScreener and enumerates the fields returned (chain, address, description, links, boost amount and timing). It also distinguishes this from 'what has liquidity,' which helps an agent separate it from liquidity-focused DEX tools.

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 gives clear context: this is for promoted tokens, not liquidity-backed tokens, and it notes the cost per call. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, but the 'pushed, not liquidity' contrast is enough to guide selection.

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