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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core behavior: it counts how many tokens the wallet launched and how many rugged or died, and flags serial ruggers. It does not mention data sources, output format, or limitations, but the disclosed behavior is substantive enough for a simple lookup 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 somewhat verbose and includes an awkward typo ('fingers') and informal phrasing like 'the memory signal no live scanner has.' It communicates effectively but could be tightened. It is front-loaded with the core question, but the subsequent sentences could be more concise.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the essential context: what it does, when to use it, and what input to provide. It implies the output includes launch counts and rugged/died status, which is sufficient for a user to understand the tool's value.

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 schema already provides a clear description for the 'wallet' parameter ('the creator/deployer wallet address'), and the description adds 'Give the wallet address.' With 100% schema coverage, this is baseline 3. No additional format or chain details are provided.

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 explicitly states the tool's function: tracking a wallet's history of token launches and whether they rugged or died. It clearly distinguishes from token-specific tools like rug_check by focusing on the deployer address, and uses a vivid question 'Has this WALLET rugged before?' to convey the purpose.

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 provides explicit guidance: 'Use when you have a token's creator/deployer address and want its history.' This clearly indicates the appropriate context. It also hints at a unique advantage (memory signal no live scanner has) but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions.

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