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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/openWorld safety, and the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: $0.01 per call, 10 free/day, x402 payment-required result shape, and that isError responses for invalid input or upstream failures are not charged. It doesn't describe latency or result size, but the cost/error disclosures are substantive.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the forensic scope and aggregation list come first, routing guidance second, cost/errors last. The aggregation enumeration is long-ish but each item is a distinct output category an agent needs; little dead weight.

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?

Despite an output schema existing, the description still tells the agent what body of data it returns and what it excludes; combined with pricing, error semantics, and sibling routing, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly or choose otherwise.

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?

Single parameter with 100% schema description coverage (base58 mint format, 32-44 chars) documented in the schema itself. The description adds no format, validation, or lookup semantics beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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+resource+scope: 'Full bonding-curve forensics for one pump.fun mint,' then enumerates exactly what is aggregated (curve trades, dev buys/sells, snipers, holders, peak, graduation). It explicitly names sibling tools it is not (launch_scan, token_risk, pump_dev), so an agent can route without opening schemas.

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?

Has an explicit 'When to use' clause contrasting this tool against three named alternatives on specific conditions (single scored verdict vs. raw forensics; contract/liquidity safety; creator track record), including the server URL for the alternatives. No inference required.

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