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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds substantial context the annotations do not: per-call price ($0.005, 10 free/day, x402 fallback), and error semantics (isError with message, not charged on upstream failure). This is exactly the cost/failure behavior an agent needs before committing to a paid call.

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?

Front-loads the verdict and its inputs, then layers when-to-use, pricing, and errors in order of decision importance. Dense but nearly every clause earns its place; the server URL is slightly bulky but justified for a paid cross-server pointer.

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?

With an output schema handling return shape and annotations covering safety, the description only needs to add cost, error, and routing context — all of which it supplies. Nothing an agent needs to decide to invoke it or interpret a payment-required result 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% and the single 'wallet' parameter is fully documented with its Base58 pattern and length in the schema. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so the schema does the heavy lifting and the 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 and resource ('One-call verdict on a Solana wallet') and enumerates exactly what the verdict covers: serial launcher, fast dumper, bot, or clean, derived from pump.fun launch history and trading profile. This distinguishes it from generic siblings like wallet_holdings or token_risk without the agent needing to open other 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?

Explicitly names the triggering context ('Before sending to or trading with a Solana wallet') and routes to the alternative for a different need ('for full trade stats use pump_wallet'). Both the when and the when-not/alternative are stated.

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