Get newest pools

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

No annotations are provided, so the description alone must disclose behavior. It conveys recency and chain scope, but says nothing about ordering, time window, returned fields, pagination, or the fact that results are limited to 20 items.

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 compact sentence with the core idea front-loaded; the memecoin clause adds color but costs little. It is appropriately sized even if the metaphor is slightly loose.

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 simple two-parameter list tool, the description gives the core purpose and a hint of when to use it. But with no output schema and no annotations, the missing ordering and limit details leave an agent guessing about response behavior.

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?

With only 50% schema description coverage, the description needed to clarify both parameters. It only gestures at the network parameter ('one chain') and says nothing about the limit parameter, leaving its meaning and optional behavior undocumented.

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 clearly identifies the resource ('freshly created token pools') and the key angle ('newest'), and frames it as a discovery surface for new memecoin launches. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling, but 'new' is enough to differentiate from get_trending_pools.

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 implies the right use case — finding newest pool launches on a network — but doesn't state when to prefer it over get_trending_pools or get_pool_trades. There are no explicit exclusions or alternative conditions.

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