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

Since no annotations are provided, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It mentions the $0.02 USDC cost and data source (GeckoTerminal), which is useful, but it does not disclose whether this is a read-only operation, any side effects, required authorization, or error behavior. This is a significant gap for a tool that likely only reads data.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes a useful disclaimer and cost note. Every sentence adds relevant information without redundancy. It is appropriately concise for the amount of context it provides.

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 has an output schema, the description does not need to detail return format. It explains what types of signals are provided, which is helpful. However, it does not clarify payment mechanics (e.g., whether payment is auto-deducted or must be explicitly provided) or any prerequisites (e.g., token must be on a supported chain). This leaves some ambiguity for an agent deciding how to invoke it.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter explanation. It lists supported chains (base, bsc, robinhood, arc) and refers to 'a token,' implying the address parameter. It alludes to payment through the cost mention, but does not explicitly map parameters to their roles or formats. This adds some value beyond an empty schema but is not comprehensive.

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 clearly states it provides bundle/sniper signals for a token, detailing what it reports (who bought in early blocks, early supply share, funding sources). It is specific about the resource (token) and the verb ('bundle/sniper signals'), and distinguishes itself from other tools by focusing on launch-window buying behavior.

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?

Usage is implied: use when you need bundle/sniper signals for a token. There is no explicit comparison to siblings like contract_check or deployer_history, nor any guidance on when not to use it. The disclaimer 'Signals, not advice' hints at appropriate context but lacks explicit selection criteria.

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