newpairs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose an important behavioral trait: the tool is paid per call via x402 with USDC on Base. It omits other critical traits such as whether results are deduplicated, how freshness is determined, and what payment failure looks like. Useful but incomplete disclosure.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The parenthetical cost note is compact and earns its place, though the wording is terse enough that the resource name and payment detail run together.

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, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the source and cost model, which are the main surprises an agent would hit. It is still missing what the return looks like (token address, pair metadata?), how 'new' is scoped, and how payment is actually authorized at call time.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; the description makes clear there is no filtering or paging input.

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 the resource ('New Base token pairs') and its source ('the internal scanner'), which is enough to distinguish it from unrelated siblings like edgar_search or swap_route. However, no verb is given – it's unclear whether the tool lists, streams, or returns a snapshot of new pairs. Purpose is inferable but not explicit.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus other tools, and no definition of what qualifies as 'new' (time window, block range, or since-last-call). The only usage context is cost ('paid per call'), which tells the agent nothing about selection conditions.

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