pons_creator_launches

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

The description adds useful behavioral detail: exact event matching via "deployer = creator," sorting newest-first, and inclusion of per-token graduated status. With no annotations provided, the description carries most of the transparency burden; it does not disclose that results are bounded by limit/lookbackBlocks or address any auth/rate-limit behaviors. "All launches" slightly overstates the default bounded query since defaults include a 20-result limit and 50000-block lookback.

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 dense sentence with no filler. The scope is front-loaded, the parenthetical clarifies the matching rule, and ordering/status details are included without excess.

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 filtered-list tool, the description plus a fully documented schema covers the purpose, required parameter, optional bounds, ordering, and an output aspect (graduated status). There is no output schema and no annotations, so a bit more information about response shape or pagination would help, but an agent can invoke this tool correctly with what is provided.

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 the schema already documents creatorAddress, limit, and lookbackBlocks. The description adds the deployer-to-creator equivalence and clarifies the result ordering, but it does not materially extend the parameter semantics. Baseline 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 identifies the resource as launches by a specific creator and adds ordering and status context: "All launches by a given creator (TokenLaunched with deployer = creator), newest-first, with per-token graduated status." It differentiates from siblings like pons_recent_launches by making the creator filter explicit. It lacks an explicit verb such as "list" or "fetch," but the intent is unmistakable.

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 phrase "by a given creator" implies the intended use case: retrieve a specific deployer's launches. However, the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like pons_recent_launches or pons_v1_launches, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites.

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