token_launches

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

No annotations provided, so description must cover behavioral aspects. It mentions outputs (risk score, liquidity, deployer history, launch metadata) but does not disclose details like update frequency, real-time vs. cached, or limitations. This leaves gaps in transparency.

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 wasted words, front-loaded with purpose. Highly concise and well-structured.

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 zero parameters and an output schema, the description covers the key outputs sufficiently. Could elaborate on 'launch metadata' but not necessary. Complete enough to understand tool's capabilities.

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?

No parameters (schema coverage 100%). Description does not need to explain params, but it clarifies the tool's function and outputs, adding value beyond the schema. Baseline 4 for zero-param tool.

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 states a specific verb ('scan'), resource ('newly launched tokens'), and purpose ('filters for legitimate vs. honeypots'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like token_due_diligence or contract_check which have different scopes.

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 identifying legitimate new token launches but does not explicitly state when to use vs. alternatives or when not to use. No comparison with sibling tools.

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