New launches

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers on the most important point: 'Costs $0.01 per call (no payment configured, calls will return 402).' That warns the agent calls will fail, which is unusually valuable. It still omits return format and pagination behavior, so not a 5.

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 short sentences, each earning its place: purpose first, usage hint second, cost warning third. No filler, and the critical 402 caveat is not buried.

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 zero-param list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description conveys what is returned ('quality signals and ratings'), when to use it, and the failure condition. It could say more about the returned item structure, but the essential call-time information 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so per the baseline there is nothing for the description to document and no risk of misinterpretation. No param detail is needed here.

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 names a specific resource and scope: 'Newly launched Pump.fun tokens that passed Cookin's rug filters, with quality signals and ratings.' This distinguishes it meaningfully from list_graduated_tokens and list_pumping_tokens by its 'newly launched' filter, though it never explicitly names those 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 only guidance is the thin 'Use it to find candidates.' There is no when-not guidance, no prerequisites, and no comparison against close siblings like scan_token or list_pumping_tokens, which leaves the agent to infer which listing tool to pick.

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