List new pairs

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure, and it does: it warns that the tool 'Burns 1 SERA' and that 'Sponsored slots are labeled.' These are non-obvious costs and content policies an agent needs before invoking. It does not discuss rate limits or error behavior, but the disclosed facts are meaningful.

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 all three sentences earn their place: the first defines the result set and fields, the second flags sponsored content, and the third states the cost. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description does a good job: it lists expected output fields, risk categories, sponsored-slot behavior, and the SERA burn. It does not explicitly say it returns an array, but the schema and phrasing make that inferable, and the parameter docs fill most remaining gaps.

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 75%, so the schema already explains risk, sort, and maxAgeMin. The description adds little beyond what the schema provides, though it does reinforce the risk verdict values. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries most of the parameter burden.

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 states a specific resource ('new memecoin pairs on Robinhood Chain') and the data returned, which makes the tool's purpose clear. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like seranox_get_pair or seranox_risk_scan, but the resource and field list make it recognizable as a list/discovery tool.

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?

It implies usage: an agent needing newly listed memecoin pairs with risk verdicts would use this tool. However, there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it, nor any mention of alternatives such as seranox_get_pair for a single pair or seranox_risk_scan for deep risk analysis.

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