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

Annotations already establish the safe, idempotent, open-world read profile, so the description is free to add value — and it does, disclosing the bear/base/bull output structure, the supply-rule variants, confidence/warnings/unknowns, and that defaults are the most cautious. It also flags 'Not financial advice', a useful behavioral caveat. It does not discuss cost, latency, or data-source failure modes.

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 trigger condition is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the parameter list and return summary follow in a compact block. The enumerated output list is a little dense, but each clause (defaults, disclaimer) carries information, so there is no real padding.

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 complex 10-parameter valuation tool with rich optional inputs, the description covers invocation intent, default posture, output shape, and a disclaimer. Since an output schema exists it need not detail return values, though it partially duplicates them; nothing critical for correct invocation is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter, including enum options and defaults; baseline is 3. The description enumerates the optional inputs by name and adds the framing that 'defaults are the most cautious', but this largely restates schema content and adds little syntax or interpretation beyond it.

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 definition gives a specific verb and resource ('Value a token from its holder revenue') and reinforces it with concrete user phrasings ('what a token is worth', 'is HYPE cheap?'). It is clearly distinguishable from non-valuation siblings like submit_feedback, but it never names or contrasts with screen_token, the closest alternative, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

It states the triggering intent explicitly ('Use this when the user asks what a token is worth... or for a fair value from revenue'), which is strong context for invocation. It offers no when-not guidance and does not route the agent to screen_token for screening-style queries, leaving the boundary between the two tools implicit.

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