Recent launchpad launches

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that data is scanned from on-chain logs and ordered newest first, which is useful context. However, it does not disclose potential delays, pagination, or specific data source caveats. This is a modest addition beyond the annotations, consistent with a score of 3.

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?

The description is a single sentence that efficiently conveys the main purpose, scope, ordering, and data source. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, and every word adds value. No verbose or redundant phrasing.

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 the tool's relative simplicity (3 optional params, no output schema), the description is quite complete: it states what is returned (recently launched tokens), the launchpads, the ordering, and the data source. While it does not explicitly describe the response format or behavioral limits, the description combined with schema and annotations is sufficient for a list-style read tool.

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%, with each parameter (limit, launchpad, lookbackBlocks) having a clear description. The tool description does not need to repeat parameter details, and it doesn't. It does add a note about launchpad names aligning with the enum, but that is already in the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema handles parameter semantics.

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 clearly states the tool's function: retrieving recently launched tokens on Robinhood Chain launchpads, with specific launchpads named (NOXA and The Odyssey). The verb 'get' plus the resource 'recent launches' and scope 'from on-chain logs' is specific and distinguishes it from more generic token listing tools.

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 description implies usage for checking recent launches, but it does not mention alternative tools or exclusion criteria. The sibling tool 'watch_launches' likely serves a different (live monitoring) purpose, but this is not stated. No explicit 'when to use vs. alternatives' guidance is provided, only an implied context.

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