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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context by explaining the grouping logic (by funder) and the output concept (share of supply), which goes beyond the schema and annotations.

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 concise sentences with no fluff. The core action (identify launch buyers and group by funder) is front-loaded, and the output (share of supply) is stated clearly. Every word earns its place.

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 read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what it does and what it returns conceptually. It could mention edge cases (e.g., if no bundles exist) or the exact return format, but given the annotations and simplicity, it is adequately 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with a clear description of the address parameter (token contract on Robinhood Chain). The description does not add any additional meaning or constraints beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline for high coverage but does not exceed it.

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 the tool's function: it identifies wallets that purchased within the first three seconds, groups them by their funder to detect bundles, and reports the combined share of supply. This is specific and distinct from sibling tools like token_holders or wallet_history, which do not focus on launch timing or funder grouping.

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 description implies usage for analyzing launch activity and detecting bundles, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. It gives clear context about the scenario (first three seconds) but stops short of contrasting with sibling tools.

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