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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations: it discloses the polling cadence (Base logs every minute), the staleness failure mode (>5 min snapshot returns 503), the enrichment applied (honeypot simulation only for the busiest pools), and the per-call cost with payment method (0.02 USDC via x402 across listed chains). These are exactly the operational facts an agent needs before calling.

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?

Front-loads the trigger phrase and then packs the return shape, freshness contract, and pricing into dense but non-redundant sentences; every clause conveys something new. It is a single long paragraph, though, and could be easier to scan if the cost/freshness caveats were separated from the payload description.

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?

Despite an output schema existing (so return fields need no explanation), the description still covers freshness guarantees, failure behavior, cost, and venue scope. For a read tool with full schema coverage, this is complete enough for an agent to call it correctly and interpret the result.

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 both `limit` (1-100, default 20) and `min_liq_usd` (quote-side liquidity, default 1000, 0 = all) are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds only the "newest first" ordering, which the schema already states, so baseline 3 applies.

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 (newest token launches / pools created in the last 24 hours on Base) and enumerates the venues covered (Uniswap V4/V3/V2, Aerodrome), which cleanly separates it from siblings like get_honeypot_check or get_liq_feed. An agent can identify the tool's scope without opening the schema.

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?

"Use when an agent needs the newest token launches on Base" gives a clear triggering context, and the 24-hour window tells the agent when the tool's data is applicable. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it (e.g. vs. a generic top-movers or honeypot tool), so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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