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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose the cost ($0.05/call), the verdict scale, and that it combines two analysis dimensions. However, it doesn't state that returns a structured or paginated result, whether the call is rate-limited, or what the '0-100' score entails beyond the label tiers. Helpful but not fully transparent.

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?

Single dense paragraph, front-loaded with the key question the tool answers and the price signal. Every clause adds value: cost, composite score, verdict list, one-call positioning. Zero waste.

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 two simple parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is nearly complete for a scoring verdict tool. It explains inputs (address, chain), the output verdict ladder, the cost, and the purpose. Missing detail on what the numeric 0-100 maps to exactly, but verdict tiers are already listed.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining what the address input produces (a composite verdict) and clarifying the chain field defaults. The 'default base' and enum list in the schema handle most parameter detail; description adds situational meaning around the address parameter's role in scoring.

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?

Description states a specific verb+resource ('Composite 0-100 buy-safety score for any token') with clear scope and a concrete output verdict scale. It distinguishes itself from the sibling token_risk by explicitly combining contract analysis with market depth into a single score, and from price/screener by being a one-call verdict tool.

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 frames the use case explicitly ('One call answers: should my agent touch this token?') and mentions the pricing condition. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or say when NOT to use this vs token_risk, though the composite-vs-single-dimension distinction is implied.

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