get_coverage

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true. The description adds a key behavioral nuance: the tool returns nothing for older tokens and guarantees a live example mint for testing. This goes beyond the safety annotation. It doesn't describe the exact output shape, but it does disclose the empty-result behavior, which is important.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose and a usage directive ('Call this first'), then a caveat. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given low complexity and annotations covering safety, the description covers coverage and freshness, and the caveat for older tokens. It doesn't detail the output structure, but for a tool like this it's likely minimal. Slightly more detail on what it returns would help, but it's adequate.

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 schema has zero parameters)Skip. Description mentions a 'live example mint' that could be passed, but it's not a formal parameter. Since there are no parameters, the description doesn't need to explain themaiman. Per rubric, 0 params = baseline 4, and the description doesn't contradict or add param info, so 4 is 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'what we hold and how fresh' — i.e., a coverage/freshness check. Includes a concrete behavior (returns nothing for older tokens) and a live example mint. Clearly distinct from siblings like check_token or token_report because it frames itself as the first call to gate subsequent lookups.

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?

Explicitly says 'Call this first', giving a clear ordering instruction. Also explains the condition for use: if the token is from before the start date or not a pump.fun/letsbonk migration, results will be empty. This is actionable when-to-use guidance.

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