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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but adds significant behavioral context: the free-during-development aspect, the x402 payment flow with specific assets and chains, and the need to call twice (first for terms, then with payment). It doesn't cover potential rate limits, data freshness, or exactly what the transactions array includes, but it discloses the payment mechanics and analysis scope.

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 front-loaded with the core question and key details, then transitions to payment logistics. It's fairly dense but not overly verbose. Some sentences are long, but every part contributes useful information about what the tool does and how to invoke it.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description does a good job covering what the tool returns (creator's buy, funded wallets buying early, transactions) and the payment process. It lacks explicit guidance on when to use it versus similar tools and doesn't detail data sources or limitations, but it's largely complete for an agent to understand and call the tool.

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% for the single 'payment' parameter, which is well-described in the schema. The description adds the two-step payment flow (call without payment for terms, then with signed payment) and mentions passing a token or pool (though that's not in the schema, it's likely implicit in the tool's operation). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema already documents the parameter.

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 names a specific analysis verb ('bundled') and details exactly what it returns: creator's buy share of supply, funded wallets among first 60 swaps of first two minutes, and transactions. It distinguishes itself from siblings like arc_contract_check or arc_fresh_launches by focusing on launch bundling detection, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them.

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 by the description's focus on 'Arc launch' and the instruction 'Pass token or pool', which suggests it's for checking if a specific launch was bundled. However, there's no explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives, no when-not-to-use, and no mention of prerequisites beyond the payment process.

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