Deployer launch history

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose non-obvious traits: slow-changing data suitable for caching and a hard failure mode (402 because no payment is configured). It still omits ordering, pagination totals, and rate-limit behavior, so it falls short of full 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?

Three tight sentences: what it returns first, then caching behavior, then cost/failure. Zero filler and the most decision-relevant fact is front-loaded.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies the key missing context: what the payload covers, that data is stable, and that calls will 402 without payment. It leaves result ordering and pagination semantics unstated, but the essential call-time context is present.

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%, so the schema already documents address, limit, and offset with ranges and defaults. The description adds nothing about parameter semantics, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 resource (every token a single deployer has launched) and even enumerates the returned metrics (bond rate, peak market caps, survival curve), which is far more concrete than a tautology. However, it never names or differentiates itself against siblings like list_new_tokens or profile_wallet, so an agent must infer the boundary itself.

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 caching hint ('changes slowly, so cache the answer') is genuine usage guidance, and the 402 warning tells the agent calls may fail for payment reasons. There is no when-to-use versus when-not guidance and no pointer to an alternative for deployer-level analysis.

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