bags_resolve_launch_wallet

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

No annotations are provided, so the description correctly carries the safety burden by explicitly labeling the operation as 'read-only' and 'free.' It does not describe failure behavior or rate limits, but for a simple resolver this is adequate disclosure.

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?

A single sentence front-loads the action and resource, lists providers economically in parentheses, and appends the cost/read-only hint. There is no filler or repetition.

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 two-parameter tool with fully documented schema and no output schema, the description provides enough context to understand the input domain and the expected result. The main omissions are exact return payload and any authentication caveats, but these are minor for this simple lookup.

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?

Both parameters are fully documented in the input schema with 100% coverage. The description lists the supported providers, but this largely duplicates the enum rather than adding new parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Resolve') and a clear resource ('a social handle ... to its Bags fee-share launch wallet'), and enumerates the supported platforms. This distinguishes it clearly from sibling tools that execute trades, claim fees, or fetch analytics.

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 intended use case is clear: when you have a social handle and need the corresponding fee-share launch wallet. It does not explicitly name an alternative or exclusion, but no sibling tool appears to perform this resolution, so the context is sufficient.

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