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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond them: the tool returns an explicit unavailable result when the chain has no configured factory, which tells the agent how to interpret a non-data response. Rate limits, pagination, and result caps are still unstated.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, and the core capability is front-loaded ahead of the edge-case degradation note. Everything stated earns its 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?

An output schema exists, so return shape need not be explained, and the failure mode on unconfigured chains is covered. The only real gap is routing guidance against the many market.* and token.* siblings, which the description leaves entirely to inference.

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%, with chain enum values, the hours 1-168 range, and withRisk all documented in the schema itself. The description only alludes to 'the selected chain' and 'token metadata', adding no syntax or meaning beyond what the schema already provides. 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 verb and resource: discovering recently created Uniswap V3 pools plus token metadata inspection. That is far more precise than the title 'New Pair Discovery'. It does not, however, contrast itself with nearby siblings like market.dex_trades, market.overview, or token.trending, so an agent must still infer the boundary.

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 guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternative. 'Recently created' hints at the lookback intent, but the agent is never told when this tool beats market.dex_trades or defi.liquidity for the same question.

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