pons_launch_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a direct onchain read and lists the fields returned, which is useful, but says nothing about permissions/auth needs, rate limits, or error behavior for an invalid address. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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?

Two tight sentences, zero waste, with the purpose and the returned fields front-loaded ahead of the address-format caveat. Every sentence 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 tool with no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields and pins down the identifier type. Complete enough for correct invocation, though the absence of any sibling routing keeps it from being exhaustive.

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% for the single token parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description's 'names/symbols are not identity; use the token address' adds genuine disambiguation beyond the schema's '(0x...)' hint, but does not add format or validation detail, keeping it at baseline.

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?

Specific verb+resource: reads a pons v1 launch token onchain, and enumerates what comes back (canonical pool, fixed supply, logo, description, social links). It hints at differentiation from pons_token_info via the 'names/symbols are not identity' note, but never names the sibling explicitly, so it stops just short of a 5.

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 one clear input condition ('use the token address', not name/symbol), which is a real usage directive. However, it never states when to prefer this over pons_token_info, pons_launch_market, or pons_price, so the when-to-use guidance against alternatives is only implied.

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