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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and it does disclose two meaningful traits: a cost (0.02 USDC) and a payment mechanism (x402). However, it omits auth/allowance requirements, failure behavior for invalid addresses, latency, and whether the scan is read-only versus state-changing, leaving real behavioral gaps.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the tool's identity and the payment model before the check list. Parenthetical stacking of cost and chain qualifiers makes it slightly harder to parse than a clean 5, but there is no wasted clause.

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 one-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain at least the shape of the result (risk verdict, flags found, confidence). It covers inputs and payment but says nothing about what the agent receives back, so an agent cannot set expectations for the response.

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% and the single parameter already documents the accepted 0x/Base58 formats. The description restates the same address formats without adding syntax, validation, or chain-selection nuance, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (Audits/Scans) and resource (Base EVM 0x contract or Solana SPL Mint), and enumerates the exact checks performed: proxy patterns, GoPlus honeypot flags, freeze authority. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_dex_token_intelligence or audit_github_repository.

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 implicitly scopes usage by naming the accepted inputs (Base EVM 0x contract or Solana SPL Mint), but never states when to prefer this over alternatives, nor any prerequisites beyond payment. Usage must be inferred rather than read.

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