token_web

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds beyond that by disclosing the $0.04 cost, the tie-outcome details, and emphasizing this operation crosses token boundaries rather than staying within one token. No contradiction with 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?

Three short sentences front-load the cost and core output, then give the when-to-use rule and the contrast with a sibling. Every sentence contributes distinct information 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 2-parameter read-only query tool with a full output schema and clear sibling positioning, this description is complete enough. It covers cost, triggering conditions, output semantics, and the tool’s cross-token scope. No critical gap remains.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, so both mint and min_shared are already documented in the schema. The description refers to 'shared wallets' and 'WHICH launches,' which aligns with min_shared, but adds no concrete syntax or behavioral detail beyond what the schema provides.

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 (earlier launches tied to a token via shared wallets) and the output (wallets, outcomes, highest market cap). It explicitly differentiates from sibling tools by contrasting with token_graph, which stays within one token, and token_identity, which reports shared wallets.

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?

Explicit when-to-use guidance is provided: 'Use when token_identity reported shared wallets and you need WHICH launches.' It also gives a clear when-not/alternative statement by noting token_graph stays inside one token while this tool crosses tokens.

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