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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it enumerates the returned categories (ESTABLISHED/MIXED/SERIAL_LAUNCHER/NEW) and the underlying metrics (launches per day/week, survival share of coins older than 3 days, 24h payouts, living coins). It also implies cost ('cheap filter'). It stops short of stating auth/permission requirements or rate limits, but for a read-only lookup this is largely sufficient.

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 the core question, followed by the input modes, the return values, and a routing note. Three tight sentences that each carry information. The narrative question framing is slightly indirect but does not waste space.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description responsibly documents the return shape and classification semantics itself. With only two fully-described parameters and no annotations to explain, the description covers what an agent needs to invoke and interpret the tool. Minor gap: no explicit statement of read-only nature or cost details.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (mint, creator) are already documented, including the 'give this or mint' either/or constraint. The description restates the same either/or without adding syntax, formats, or resolution behavior beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific resource (a StonkFun coin creator's track record) and the question it answers ('Who launched this StonkFun coin, and do their coins survive?'). It names the two input modes (creator wallet or coin mint) and the classification output, so an agent can distinguish it from generic wallet tools. Sibling differentiation is only implicit, since nearby tools like stonk_launch_intel or stonk_preflight are not referenced.

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?

'A cheap filter before paying for anything else on a fresh coin' gives clear context for when to reach for it: as a low-cost pre-check on a new token. No exclusions or named alternatives are provided, but the positioning against 'paying for anything else' is explicit enough to route the agent.

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