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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the most important trait: scores are pre-computed by a background worker, so they may lag the live chain state. It says nothing about result limits, pagination, ordering, or how many pools are returned, which matters for a scanning endpoint.

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, front-loaded with what the tool returns before the filtering note. The parenthetical about the background worker is longer than needed but earns its place by justifying the fast-read claim, so there is little waste.

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?

For a read-only listing tool with no output schema and a nested input object, the description covers what the tool is, why it is fast, and the two filters. The main gap is the shape and volume of the response, which the absent output schema leaves undocumented.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does partly: it maps since_minutes to an age filter with a 60-minute cap and identifies min_liquidity_usd as a liquidity floor. It does not explain the nested payload wrapper, the default of 15 minutes, or what null liquidity means, leaving the schema to do the rest.

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?

Names a specific resource (newly created Base liquidity pools) and the payload they carry (a pre-computed pretrade safety score). It also distinguishes itself from base_pretrade by noting the score comes from a background worker rather than a live scan. The listing verb is only implied 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?

Gives a clear usage context: this is the fast-read path for surfacing new pools, whereas POST /base/pretrade is the live-scan path. It does not state explicit exclusions, such as whether to prefer base_pretrade when a single token needs a fresh check, so the routing is strongly implied rather than spelled out.

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