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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the data source (Live from Dexscreener), list of output fields, and cost ($0.09 via x402). It doesn't cover error behavior or pagination, but for a read-only feed, the transparency is adequate and valuable.

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?

Three sentences, each packed with value: cost and purpose, output contents, and usage pattern with source. No wasted words, front-loaded with the key differentiator ($0.09 via x402 and 'discovery feed').

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 feed with no output schema, the description is quite complete: it explains the scope, output fields, workflow, and source. It lacks exact response structure and rate-limit details, but those are not critical for a straightforward discovery feed. It provides enough for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 67% (2 of 3 params documented). The description adds context for the 'chain' parameter by listing example chains (Solana, Base, Ethereum, BSC), but it does not explain the 'x_payment' parameter or add meaning to 'limit' beyond the schema. Since coverage is mid-range, baseline 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 a discovery feed for token launches and promoted tokens across multiple chains, with a specific verb 'discovery feed' and resource 'token launches'. It distinguishes itself from siblings by mentioning the next_calls into token_security_check and dex_token_data, positioning it as the entry point in the workflow.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'Poll this on a loop to find candidates, then verify and price them,' which tells the agent when to use this tool (discovery phase) and chains into alternative tools for verification. It lacks an explicit 'when not to use' clause, but the workflow context is strongly implied.

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