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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so: it discloses the pay-per-call model ($0.002 over x402 with named chains/tokens), the two-step signed-terms flow, the freshness precondition ('tokens older than about 2 days are refused before payment'), and a provenance claim ('history proven complete'). These are exactly the traits an agent needs beyond structured fields.

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?

Front-loaded with the core question ('Who holds this Arc token, and did the creator pull the liquidity?') and dense throughout, but the return-value rundown is one long comma-spliced sentence that could be tightened. Nearly every clause earns its place, so only minor trimming is warranted.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must describe returns and it does comprehensively (holders, pools, creator behavior, flags). It also covers the payment mechanics and freshness constraint, leaving nothing an agent needs before invoking 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: the `payment` parameter is explained as the signed x402 payload equivalent to PAYMENT-SIGNATURE, and the description clarifies it can be omitted on the first call to retrieve terms. That workflow semantics is not derivable from the schema alone.

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?

States a specific resource (Arc token holders) and verb-equivalent (report who holds it), then enumerates the exact payload: holder count, top 10 holders, top 10 ordinary wallets with % of supply, Uniswap v4 pool holdings, creator holdings/flow, other launches in 30 days, and flags. This is far more specific than siblings like arc_whales or arc_token_info and lets an agent distinguish it without opening a schema.

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?

Gives a clear operating context: call once without `payment` to fetch terms, sign with your own wallet, call again with `payment`, and the precondition that tokens older than ~2 days are refused before payment. However it never names or excludes alternatives (e.g. arc_whales, arc_trust_check, arc_token_info), so the when-not-to-use-this decision is left to inference.

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