Discover Verified Safe New & Trending DEX Token Pairs

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds substantive behavior: GoPlus honeypot and high-tax filtering, AlphaScore ranking, the six-chain scope, and a concrete rate-limit/paid-tier model. It does not describe result shape beyond 'top pairs', but the additive context is strong.

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?

One front-loaded sentence covering scope, filtering, ranking, and pricing, with no filler. It runs slightly long as a single clause-chained sentence, but every clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

With no output schema, the description takes on the burden of describing returns and does so at a summary level ('top verified safe pairs ranked by AlphaScore'). Combined with explicit filtering provenance and the payment gate, the picture is nearly complete; only pagination/empty-result behavior is unstated.

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 limit, network, and paymentProof are fully documented in the schema and the 3-baseline applies. The description enumerates the chains (already in the enum) and hints at the free-call gating behind paymentProof, but adds no format or validation detail beyond the schema.

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: scans newly active/boosted liquidity pools across six named chains, filters scams, and returns AlphaScore-ranked safe pairs. It is clearly a discovery tool, distinguishable in practice from check_token_security and get_token_alpha, though it never names those siblings to make the separation 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?

The payment model (3 free calls/day, $0.02 USDC thereafter) effectively signals when paymentProof is needed, which is real usage context. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over check_token_security or get_token_alpha, so the agent must infer the routing itself.

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