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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the cost per call ($0.001 USDC) and that it is byte-identical to a specific REST endpoint, plus the presence of audit flags. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two sentences: the first concisely lists the resource and fields, the second adds cost and endpoint reference. Information is front-loaded, and there is no filler or redundancy.

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 an output schema present and annotations covering safety, the description provides all necessary context: scope, cost, endpoint equivalence, and the nature of the data. An agent has everything needed to decide when and how to call this tool.

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 only parameter, 'limit', is fully documented in the schema with type, max, and default. The description does not add further semantic details, and since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 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 identifies the tool as listing the most recent tokens from Jupiter's token API, enumerating specific fields (mint, name, supply, market cap, liquidity, launch pool, audit flags) and explicitly stating it is a launch feed, not a recommendation. This distinguishes it from siblings like market_jup_token_prices and market_jup_token_search.

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 states the tool provides a launch feed and not a recommendation, implying its use for monitoring new listings rather than for investment decisions. Though it does not explicitly name alternatives, the clear context and the 'not a recommendation' disclaimer provide sufficient guidance on when to use it.

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