get_bundle_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states the tool's purpose but does not disclose what the tool returns (e.g., a boolean, a score, details), whether it makes external calls, or any side effects. For a detection tool, the output format and interpretation are critical, and this is not addressed.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the purpose. It is efficient and contains no fluff. However, it could be slightly more structured by including a note about the output or usage, but for its length, it is well-written.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (a detection tool with a single parameter and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns, how to interpret the result, or any limitations. The agent would need to guess the output format, which is a significant gap for a tool that provides a scam indicator.

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 schema description coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'mint', which is described as 'Token mint address'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, but since the schema fully covers the parameter, a baseline of 3 is appropriate. The description does not clarify the format or any constraints 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 states the tool's purpose: detecting if a token launch was bundled, which is a scam indicator. It uses a specific verb ('Detect') and resource ('token launch'), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_token_info or get_token_holders by focusing on the bundling scam aspect.

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 implies usage for scam detection but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when not to use it or provide context on how it fits with other token analysis tools. The purpose is clear enough that an agent could infer usage, but explicit guidance is missing.

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