arc_token_screen

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: the tool is a cheap non-executing gate, tokens are refused under specific decoy-pool conditions, and NO_DATA is returned when the token has not traded in the discovery window. This is strong behavioral disclosure for a read-like screening tool.

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 and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose and core outputs, the second clarifies scope with a critical exclusion, and the third explains the NO_DATA edge case. Every sentence earns its place with no 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?

For a single-parameter screening tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description gives enough to invoke it correctly: expected inputs, outputs, refusal conditions, and the no-data edge case. It does not specify the exact shape or types of the returned fields, but that is not necessary for calling the tool successfully.

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 already fully documents the single parameter 'ca' with 100% coverage, so the description adds little parameter-level meaning beyond referring to 'contract address'. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting and no additional parameter context is needed.

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 states a specific verb ('Screen'), a clear resource ('launched Arc token by contract address'), and enumerates the returned information (USDC-paired pool, fee, recent swap count, decoy-pool verdict). It also differentiates itself from siblings by explicitly noting it does NOT run a live buy/sell, which separates it from tools like arc_token_sellsim.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: as a 'cheap gate' before doing heavier checks, and it explicitly warns that no live buy/sell is executed. It does not name alternative tools or state explicit when-not-to-use conditions, so it falls just short of full guidance.

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