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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses important result behavior: no record for factory/relayer wallets above the launch ceiling, no record for single-launch wallets, no success rate computation, and rows containing only crossed events. This is exactly the kind of non-obvious behavior an agent needs.

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?

Three sentences in a logical order: what the tool returns, when it returns nothing, and the calculation caveat. Every sentence adds distinct, non-obvious information and the description is appropriately sized for a single-parameter lookup.

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 tool with no output schema, the description gives a reasonable picture of the return rows and the key filters. It does not fully specify the output shape or field formats, and the term 'liveness' is not defined, but for a one-parameter query the description is largely complete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the burden for parameter meaning. It implies that `address` is a Robinhood Chain wallet address, but it never explicitly states the expected format, checksum requirements, or that the address must be a deployer wallet. This is minimally sufficient but leaves room for misinterpretation.

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 identifies the resource (one Robinhood Chain wallet's launched tokens) and the kind of data returned (tokens, liveness, liquidity, $100K crosses). It is specific but stops short of naming a contrasting sibling tool, so it gets a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

The usage context is implied rather than explicit: an agent can tell it is for deployer history of a single Robinhood Chain wallet, and the exclusion conditions (factory/relayer wallets above ceiling, single launches) describe when no record exists. No alternative tools are mentioned, so there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance.

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