new_pairs

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that it's a paid service (returns 402 if unpaid), requires a funded wallet, and describes output fields. This is good behavioral context for a paid tool.

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 a single, dense paragraph that front-loads the purpose and includes a compact parameter list. It could be more structured (e.g., separate payment info), but it is concise and informative.

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?

The description explains the output format (token, quote, pool, etc.), the payment model, and how to use it with token-safety. For a read-only tool with 4 optional params and no output schema, this is complete and actionable.

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% with clear parameter descriptions for since, limit, dex, and withToken. The description does not add meaningful information beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states the tool provides recently-created DEX pairs from Uniswap V3 and Aerodrome for fresh token launches. It is specific to Base chain and distinct from sibling tools like liquidity_pulls or whale_swaps.

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 suggests bundling with token-safety for pre-trade checks, indicating a use case. It implicitly targets trading agents/snipers but lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives.

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