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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the tool is paid (price $0.002) and uses POST HTTP method, but does not clarify if it is read-only, what side effects exist, required permissions, rate limits, or data freshness. The term 'intelligence' is vague and doesn't confirm safety characteristics. This is a significant gap for a paid 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 relatively concise but mixes multiple pieces of information (data fields, template syntax, payment details, endpoint) without clear structure. It could be improved by separating functional purpose from operational details. The length is acceptable but not optimally organized for quick understanding.

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 that there is no output schema, the description should at least outline the return structure. It lists data fields but does not specify format, data types, or whether results are always returned. For a paid tool with potentially complex output, this information is insufficient for an agent to reliably parse and use the response. Missing details on errors, pagination, or limits further reduce completeness.

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 one optional parameter 'jetton' with description 'Jetton master (default USD₮)'. The description adds that the default is USD₮ and shows a template 'Send { jetton? }', which provides minor extra context. With 100% schema coverage, this barely meets the baseline of 3. It does not explain valid value formats (e.g., address vs symbol) or how to specify a different jetton.

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 it provides 'master intelligence' for a TON jetton and lists specific data fields (supply, holders, decimals, mintability, admin). It also indicates the default jetton (USD₮) and includes a template syntax for specifying a jetton. This differentiates it from sibling tools like 'ton_jetton_holders' which likely focus only on holders. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'Get' or 'Query' to clarify it's a read operation.

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions the price and HTTP endpoint but no context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or when not to use it. The agent receives no help in deciding between this and other jetton-related or crypto tools.

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