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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the most consequential non-obvious trait: the tool is gated behind a $0.02 USDC payment on Base via x402. It also states the score scale. It stops short of describing latency, caching, or what happens when an unsupported chain is supplied, so it is not fully complete.

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?

Two tight sentences: the capability and its output dimensions first, the payment constraint second. No filler, nothing repeated, and the most decision-relevant facts are front-loaded.

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 3-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the return value at a high level (0-100 plus factor list) but leaves the actual response shape, factor weighting, and failure modes unexplained. Adequate to attempt a call, not enough to interpret one confidently.

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 67%, in the middle band, and the description adds little parameter-level detail. It implies that 'address' is the ERC-20 token contract (via 'ERC-20 token' in the first sentence) and that payment is part of the flow, but the schema already documents the chain values and the x402 payload.

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 names a specific resource and output ('ERC-20 token risk score 0-100') and enumerates the exact risk vectors checked (honeypot, taxes, mint, hidden owner, blacklist, LP lock, top holders). That is far more concrete than a sibling like contract_scan, though it never explicitly says how it differs from that sibling.

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?

Use is implied — the list of rug-pull vectors makes it obvious this is a pre-trade due-diligence check — but the description never says when to choose this over contract_scan or address_label, nor any preconditions beyond the payment note. No exclusions are stated.

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