coinduel_listing_policy

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the substantive content: the fee amount, an automatic 7-check review, the specific check categories, refund rules, and a 'tracked-never-scored' liquidity floor. That last phrase usefully signals a nuance (the floor is monitored but not scored) that an agent could not infer elsewhere. It does not state read-only/non-mutating status or the response shape explicitly, keeping it below a 5.

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 content is front-loaded — the tool's identity lands in the first clause, the covered topics follow, and the actionable instruction ('read this before submitting') closes it. The parenthetical check list is dense but each item earns its place as a preview of the policy's scope; only minor tightening is possible.

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 static, zero-parameter reference tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what an agent needs to decide to call it and what topics it will get back. It lacks return-format detail (e.g., whether the policy is prose vs. structured thresholds) and does not link forward to the precheck tool, which are the only meaningful 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?

The tool takes zero parameters and the schema is an empty object, so there is nothing to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly avoids inventing inputs and instead spends its words on what the policy covers.

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 uses a specific verb+resource framing: 'Coin Duel coin-listing policy,' then enumerates the exact contents (100 USD x402 fee, 7-check review, thresholds, refund rules, liquidity floor). An agent can tell this is the policy/reference tool rather than the precheck or leaderboard tool, though it never names 'coinduel_rules' or 'coinduel_listing_precheck' to make the distinction 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?

'Read this before submitting any coin' gives a clear precondition for use, which is strong guidance for a zero-parameter info tool. It stops short of naming the natural companion tools (coinduel_listing_precheck for the actual check, coinduel_rules for game mechanics), so no when-not or alternative routing is provided.

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