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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description adds important behavior the agent cannot get elsewhere: a 60-second cache window, a per-call monetary cost of $0.010, and the x402 payment requirement (USDC on Base or Solana). Disclosing that calls are paid and settle via a payment header is exactly the kind of operational fact that prevents failed invocations.

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?

Four compact sentences that are front-loaded with the resource and its contents, then the data source, then caching and price. The opening sentence mostly restates the title, which is a small amount of waste, but nothing else is padding.

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 no output schema, the description usefully enumerates returned fields and the sort order, and it covers payment and caching. The remaining gap is that the three source modes — the core selection mechanism for a tool about promotions versus new listings — are never explained, which matters for a read-only discovery tool an agent will call blind.

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 coverage is 75%, with inline descriptions for chain ('solana, base, ethereum, bsc, arbitrum, polygon, all') and source ('boosted, latest_boosts or new_profiles'). The description adds nothing about the parameters — it never explains what 'boosted' versus 'latest_boosts' versus 'new_profiles' actually returns, nor the 30-item limit ceiling, nor how the 'tx' parameter relates to the X-Payment-Tx header.

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 gives a specific resource and scope: promoted/newly listed tokens from DexScreener, enriched with price, 1h/24h change, volume, liquidity, FDV, pool age and links, sorted by 24h volume. That is far more concrete than the sibling names alone (token_price, token_report, market_overview). It does not explicitly say how it differs from those siblings, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use statement, no exclusions, and no named alternative. An agent seeing this alongside price, token_report and market_overview gets no rule for choosing this one over the others; usage is only inferable from the noun phrase 'trending and newly promoted tokens'.

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