launch_funder

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

Without annotations, the description partially discloses behavioral traits (e.g., 'Reports STRUCTURE, never intent', 'shared paymaster proves shared control or shared infrastructure'). However, it omits key details like auth needs, rate limits, or whether the tool is read-only.

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 verbose and not front-loaded. It opens with a rhetorical question and uses figurative language, making it inefficient for quick comprehension. Important operational details are buried or missing.

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 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It lacks information on return values, error handling, and operational nuances, making it insufficient for reliable tool use.

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 has two parameters (chain and address) with 0% schema description coverage. The description does not explain what these parameters mean, expected formats, or valid values, leaving the agent without necessary guidance.

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 metaphorical language ('Who paid for this launch, and what else did they pay for?') but fails to clearly state the tool's action. It hints at tracing funders and clusters but is vague and not actionable for an agent.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use launch_funder versus siblings like rug_powers or vet_meme. The poetic description does not provide context for tool selection.

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