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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the per-prompt price and payment rail ($0.01 USDC via x402), the multi-tool fan-out behind the scenes, and the small/fast model tradeoff that explains brevity.

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?

Two tight sentences plus a price tag, with the core purpose and the routing rule front-loaded. Nothing is padded, though the embedded product names make it slightly dense to parse.

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, so return-value detail is unnecessary, and annotations carry the safety profile. Combined with cost disclosure and a routing rule, this is nearly complete for a one-param pay-per-call tool; only the sibling-name mapping is left fuzzy.

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?

Only one parameter, and the schema documents it at 100% coverage ('A short question about Argus launches / Arc markets'). The description restates the topical scope but adds no format, length, or constraint guidance beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (answers) plus resource (Argus launches/bonding/market mood data) and mechanism (agent buys Argus tools, small fast model). It distinguishes itself from the sibling that handles token picks by name.

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?

Explicitly routes simple questions here and names an alternative ('Ask the Fucus Agent') for token picks and trading strategies. The alternative is referred to by a display-style name rather than a tool name, which makes the mapping to fucus_oracle vs. fuci_agent slightly ambiguous.

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