First-block snipers

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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond the read-only/idempotent hints: partial results when reachedGenesis is false, caching duration differences (10 minutes vs 2 hours), a 30-row cap with totalEarlyBuyers holding the full count, and the explicit handling of migration-crank MEV bots. These details are valuable and not present in the 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?

Every sentence carries operational value: scope, window, row limits, exclusion behavior, caching caveats, use case, alternatives, and cost. The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and then layers constraints and guidance in a logical order without repetition or filler.

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?

The tool is fully contextualized: it explains what the result means, how to interpret a partial result, when to use alternatives, what arguments are needed, and the API cost. With an output schema present and rich annotations, this description leaves no important gap for an agent invoking the tool correctly.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3; the schema already thoroughly documents the address and chain parameters, including formats, defaults, and rejection behavior. The description only restates 'Arguments: address and chain' without adding new parameter-level semantics, so it does not justify a higher score.

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 (bots that bought in the first block/seconds of a token launch) and the specific information returned (whether they are connected to the deployer). It further distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly naming get_launch_bundles and get_wallet_links as the tools for different cases, so an agent can tell this tool apart without inspecting schemas.

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 states the intended use: 'Use it to tell an organic launch from a pre-arranged one.' It also gives explicit exclusions: 'Not for coordinated multi-wallet launch buying (get_launch_bundles) or the deployer's funding of other wallets (get_wallet_links).' This gives clear when-to-use versus when-not-to-use guidance, including named alternatives.

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