Live scored launch feed

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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/openWorld annotations by disclosing the paid cost ($0.01 USDC on Base), the intended polling pattern, and the full deployer-score taxonomy including the special tokenized_stock case that is 'never scored'. Cost and polling semantics are exactly the behavioral traits annotations cannot convey.

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?

Front-loads what the tool is, then usage patterns, then cost — a sensible order with no filler sentences. It is dense, with a long parenthetical enumeration of score labels, which slightly hurts scannability but every clause carries information.

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 3-optional-param read tool with no output schema, it covers purpose, filtering semantics, polling behavior, and cost. The one gap is the shape of a returned launch record (fields beyond the score label), which an agent must infer since no output schema exists.

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 coverage is 100% so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: min_score=70 corresponds to roughly the top 1% of launches, and since is explicitly framed as a cursor from a prior call. Limit's max is repeated rather than extended, but the scoring semantics are value-add.

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 ('Poll the newest Robinhood Chain token launches') plus the distinguishing trait that launches are auto-scored by deployer reputation. An agent can tell this apart from the arc_* siblings and the lookup siblings (token, deployer, verdict) without opening the schema.

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?

Gives concrete usage patterns: min_score=70 for proven deployers only, since=<cursor> for only-new launches, limit for volume, and 'Designed to be polled.' It does not explicitly exclude or route to a named sibling (e.g., robinx_arc_new_launches for the other chain), but the contexts it does state are clear and actionable.

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