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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, but the description adds materially new behavioral context: which returned fields are untrusted creator-written text (name/symbol/description/links/bio), an explicit instruction not to follow embedded instructions, and the statement that the server never requests keys or seed phrases. This is genuine safety-relevant disclosure beyond the structured fields.

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 front-loaded with the data inventory, with safety notes following, and every sentence carries some signal. The volatility/'not investment advice' line is closer to boilerplate than tool documentation, but it is short and not misleading.

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 must describe the return payload, and it does so by enumerating the fact categories and even the untrusted.fields container. Combined with 100% schema coverage on the one parameter and thorough safety notes, an agent has enough to call it correctly, though the response shape (nesting, key names) remains only loosely sketched.

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?

There is a single optional parameter at 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents lang, its enum and its default. The description never mentions the language parameter or its effect on the risk notice, so it adds nothing here — 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?

The description names a specific resource (memepad launchpad facts) and enumerates its contents — DBC config keys, partner address, curve/graduation parameters, official channels — so an agent knows exactly what data comes back. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like get_mpad or get_coin, so the differentiation is inferred from content rather than stated.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'How to recognise memepad tokens' suggests calling this when you need platform-level reference data rather than per-token data. There is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no sibling named as an alternative, leaving the agent to infer routing from the field list.

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