getLaunchpoolProjectList

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context such as pagination, optional filters, and the pools array with APR/staking totals. However, it does not explain status value semantics or cursor behavior, which limits 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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and keeps detail in a separate agent hint. There is some redundancy, such as repeating status filtering and pagination, but overall it is compact and readable for the amount of information conveyed.

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 pagination, filters, and the key return field (pools), which is reasonable for a list endpoint with no output schema. It is incomplete regarding status value meanings, the exact role of projectId, and cursor format, so an agent may still need to infer or experiment.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, and it does add functional meaning: status is a filter, activityCoin narrows by coin, and cursor/limit control pagination. However, it refers to 'project code' instead of the schema's actual projectId parameter, and it does not explain the meaning of status values 0–2, leaving gaps.

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 ('Returns') and resource ('paginated list of Launchpool activities filtered by status'), making the core purpose clear. It also differentiates from user-specific Launchpool siblings like getLaunchpoolUserCurrentStaking by focusing on activity/project-level data, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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 agent hint gives clear guidance on when to use the tool: browse Launchpool activities by status, filter by activityCoin, and paginate with cursor + limit. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the usage context is sufficiently clear.

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