geckoterminal_new_pools

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Get newly created pools' and the use case, but does not disclose any behavioral details such as pagination limits, sorting order, or that it is a read-only operation. Since the tool is a simple GET, it's not risky, but the description lacks transparency about response behavior or any constraints beyond the schema.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the action and resource. It is concise and adds the use case in a dash clause without unnecessary fluff. Every phrase 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?

For a simple tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate. It tells the agent what the tool does and even hints at the use case. However, it does not describe the return format or any pagination details, though this is not critical for a list retrieval tool. Overall, it is complete enough for selection and invocation.

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% (both page and network are described). The description reinforces the network parameter ('all networks or on a specific network') but adds no new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents the parameters well.

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 action ('Get'), the resource ('newly created pools'), and the scope ('across all networks or on a specific network'). It differentiates itself from sibling tools like geckoterminal_trending_pools or geckoterminal_top_pools by emphasizing 'newly created' and the use case 'catch new token launches early'.

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 gives clear context for when to use this tool: when you want newly created pools to catch new token launches. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios, but the use case is implicitly distinct from trending or top pools. No exclusions are mentioned, but the context is sufficient for an agent.

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