getLaunchpoolProjectList

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses pagination behavior, optional filtering, and the response shape (pools with APR and staking totals). It does not explain the meaning of the required status integer values or any auth/rate-limit traits, but it is reasonably transparent for a read-only list 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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and stays compact. The agent hint adds practical guidance, though there is minor redundancy between the first paragraph and the hint about status filtering and pools.

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 purpose, filters, pagination, and basic output shape, but with no output schema and no enums it leaves important gaps: status integer meanings, exact response field names, and cursor handling details. This is adequate but not fully complete for an agent needing to call it correctly without extra assumptions.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains status filtering, activityCoin, projectCode, and limit/cursor pagination, adding meaning beyond the bare schema. The main omission is the mapping of status values (0/1/2) to concrete activity states.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Returns a paginated list of Launchpool activities filtered by status.' It also names the optional filters (activity coin, project code) and the key return content (pools array with APR and staking totals), making the tool's role distinct from Launchpool user-history siblings.

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 explicitly says to use this endpoint for browsing Launchpool activities by status, explains filtering by activityCoin, and instructs cursor + limit for pagination. It gives clear context but does not state when not to use it or name alternative tools for user-specific history.

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