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

Despite readOnlyHint/openWorldHint already covering safety, the description adds high-value behavior: up to two minutes runtime, free with a key or $0.02 per call via x402, and 'never settled if it fails.' It also enumerates what the report contains (launch history, fee wallets, funding tree to root funder), which substitutes for the absent output schema.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, but the body is a dense run-on that crams detection heuristics, example lamport figures (895,880 out / 890,880 back), and output contents into one unbroken block. The detailed evidence examples are informative but heavy for a selection-time description.

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?

For a complex forensic tool with no output schema, the description covers inputs, expected latency, payment behavior, failure handling, and the shape of the returned report. An agent has enough to decide to call it and to set expectations.

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%, so both parameters are already documented, including mint as a base58 narrowing filter and wallet accepting a mint. The description restates those roles ('a token's mint scans its creator') without adding format, constraints, or precedence rules beyond the schema, so 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?

The opening sentence names a specific verb (detect/scan) and a precise resource: whether a Solana wallet launched or traded memecoins via Proxima or BlockX launch kits. That framing alone separates it from siblings like analyze_address or trace_transfer, which are generic address/transfer tools rather than launch-kit forensics.

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 states the two input modes ('A token's mint scans its creator') and the cost model, which implies when it applies, but it never says when to choose it over analyze_address or find_token_insiders, nor any exclusions. Usage is inferable rather than explicit.

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