pons_v1_get_token

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It honestly describes the returned data categories and, importantly, mentions the NOT_A_LAUNCH error condition for tokens absent from the legacy factory. It could say explicitly that this is a read-only query or describe how 'live' data is sourced, but overall it gives meaningful behavioral context beyond the tool name.

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 compact and information-dense, with no redundant fluff. The front-loaded 'V1 (legacy...) Pons launch state' quickly orients the agent, and the remaining sentences add necessary scope and error context. It is slightly list-heavy, but every clause 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 single-parameter read-only lookup tool, the description is largely complete: it enumerates what data is returned, clarifies legacy scope, mentions the closure date, and states the expected error. The lack of an output schema means the description should carry return-value information, which it does at a summary level. It does not explain the graduationStatus values themselves, but this is likely available elsewhere via sibling tools or documentation.

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?

The input schema already documents the single tokenAddress parameter with 'V1-launched token contract address', and schema description coverage is 100%. The description reinforces that the address must correspond to a legacy-factory token, but it does not add new format, validation, or normalization details. A baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema fully covers the parameter.

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 rather nerdy but exact definition states that this tool returns the V1 Pons launch state for a given token, covering legacy-factory record, graduation status, ERC-20 metadata, and getTokenInfo metadata. It clearly distinguishes this from the sibling pons_get_token by emphasizing the V1 legacy scope. The verb 'get' plus the resource 'V1 launch state' is 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 description provides clear context for when to use the tool: for tokens launched in the V1 legacy factory, and it notes that V1 is closed to new launches since 2026-08-12. It also gives an exclusion signal by stating that NOT_A_LAUNCH is returned if the token is not in the legacy factory. However, it does not explicitly name an alternative tool for non-V1 tokens, so it stops short of full when/alternatives guidance.

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