Network and server mode

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

Even with annotations already declaring readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, the description adds genuine behavioral detail: it can report whether writes are enabled, reveals operator-set spend ceilings and the signing address, and states it 'touches no chain state.' It also documents the quote token semantics (native USDC with 18 decimals vs ERC-20 such as EURC with 6 decimals) and the special USDC predeploy, helping the agent interpret results safely.

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 compact enough despite its detail, and it front-loads the tool's purpose and scope before giving operational facts and a sibling pointer. There is some redundancy between 'READ-ONLY or has writes enabled' and 'whether the write tools exist at all,' so it is not perfectly tight.

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 zero-argument discovery tool with a rich output payload and no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the main content: chain, contracts, venues, router, server mode, spend ceilings, signer, and quote tokens. It also states side-effect-free behavior and usage precedence. This leaves the agent with enough context to invoke it correctly and interpret the result.

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?

The input schema is empty with additionalProperties false, and the description explicitly states 'Takes no arguments,' so there is nothing further for parameter documentation to add. Per the zero-parameter baseline, this is fully covered.

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 concrete informational resource (network/server mode) and enumerates the exact facts it reveals, from chain and deployed contracts to the read-only/writable mode. It also differentiates itself from the sibling arcnow_quote_tokens, which accesses quote-token registry data. Despite lacking a leading verb, 'Call this first ... It tells you' provides a clear operative purpose.

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?

It explicitly says 'Call this first in any session that might trade,' giving a direct when-to-use trigger. It also explains that the tool has no arguments and touches no chain state, and contrasts with arcnow_quote_tokens by saying that tool asks the registry which quotes a launch accepts. This is actionable routing guidance relative to the sibling set.

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