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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description goes well beyond them: per-call price with free-tier and x402 payment-required behavior, error semantics (isError, not charged on upstream failure), and the critical caveat that "ok:true" means no red flags found, not that the coin is safe. Back-tested skip rules and their held-out performance give the agent concrete behavioral grounding.

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?

Front-loaded with "Who bundled a Solana pump.fun launch" and every subsequent clause (skip rules, extra flags, ok:true caveat, when-to-use, price, errors) carries substantive information. It is dense and long, but not padded; the density is the only knock.

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?

An output schema exists, yet the description still supplies the one semantic detail that matters most for interpreting it ("ok:true" ≠ safe) along with cost and error behavior. For a single-parameter, read-only forensic tool, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret it correctly.

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% and the only parameter is fully documented as a Base58 mint. The description adds genuine meaning beyond the schema by noting pump.fun launches get the full bundle view, implying non-pump.fun mints yield partial results — a behavioral nuance the schema does not carry.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: labelling every block-0 wallet of a Solana pump.fun launch as sniper bot / bundle / dev-linked, plus concentration and a skip/pass verdict. It is clearly distinct in scope, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the listed siblings (bundler_profile, creator_launches, evm_bundle_forensics) — it only redirects to non-sibling launch_scan for a scored verdict.

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?

An explicit "When to use" sentence names the triggering condition (see who bundled a launch and get the skip/pass rug guard) and names the alternative (launch_scan on the A.U.G.U.R Foresight server) for the scored-verdict use case, complete with URL. Pricing and error conditions are also spelled out so the agent knows the cost/retry posture.

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