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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It explains the rug verdict logic ('a clean contract with unlocked LP is caution, not clear — most fresh rugs are liquidity pulls') and ranking by liquidity depth. It does not mention data freshness, rate limits, or potential side effects, but the core behavioral traits are well disclosed.

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 a single dense paragraph with minimal wasted words. It front-loads the main action and key features. However, it could be more structured (e.g., bullet points) for easier parsing, and the final 'FREE demo' line is slightly out of place.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose and main behavioral nuance but omits details about return format (e.g., structure of the rug verdict) and does not clarify how the single parameter affects output. Given no output schema, these gaps reduce completeness for an agent.

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 sole parameter 'chain' (enum of 7 chains, default 'base') has 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not mention or explain this parameter at all. The agent receives no guidance on how to use or override the default chain, which is a significant gap given low schema coverage.

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 states the tool's action ('Discover what just launched AND rug-screen it'), the resource ('fresh token launches'), and the specific behavior ('ranked by liquidity depth... with a per-token rug verdict'). This distinguishes it from siblings like rug_check (individual token check) and catalog (general list).

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 implies usage for discovering new token launches with safety screening, and includes 'FREE demo (shared daily budget)' suggesting cost awareness, but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives or when not to use. No exclusions or alternative tool mentions.

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