pons_recent_graduations

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses ordering ('newest-first'), the event source, and output fields, but does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, clarify what 'swept token/pair amounts' precisely means, or mention behavior such as empty results or block-range edge cases. Acceptable but not rich.

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 dense sentence with no filler. The action, ordering, and output fields are front-loaded, and every phrase earns its place. This is an ideal length for a simple event-scanning tool.

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 straightforward read-only scanner with 100% schema coverage, the description is largely complete: it lists the returned fields, which matters because there is no output schema. It could add a touch more context about the factory contract or result shape, but nothing essential is missing for 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%, so the baseline is 3 even though the tool description adds no parameter-level detail. The schema fully documents 'limit' and 'lookbackBlocks', including defaults, ranges, and units, so the description does not need to compensate.

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 names a specific verb ('Scan'), a concrete resource ('factory PoolGraduated events'), an explicit ordering ('newest-first'), and the exact returned fields. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like pons_recent_launches and pons_creator_launches without needing to inspect 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?

Usage context is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer 'use this when needing recent PoolGraduated events' from the description. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives, no mention of exclusions, and no guidance about which sibling to choose for other graduation-related queries.

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