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

Beyond the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive annotations, the description discloses live data sources (Solana contract state, largest accounts, DexScreener), pump.fun curve-flag merging, pricing with a free tier and x402 payment flow, and error behavior including that failures are not charged. This is unusually rich operational context for an agent.

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 description is front-loaded with the score and risk factors, then cleanly separates 'When to use', 'Price', and 'Errors'. Every sentence contributes useful selection or invocation information without filler.

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 present, the description need not explain return values. It covers purpose, usage, data sources, pricing, and error handling, and the annotations already declare the safety profile, leaving no material gaps for correct invocation.

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 is fully documented in the schema with its Base58 pattern and length. The description adds no additional syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already provides, so 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('0-100 rug-risk score for any Solana token') and immediately enumerates the risk dimensions it covers. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly naming pump_token for curve-stage detail and evm_token_security for EVM tokens.

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 provides an explicit 'When to use' section covering all Solana tokens, pump.fun or not, and directs agents to the correct alternative for pump.fun curve-stage detail and EVM tokens. The conditions selecting each sibling are clearly stated.

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