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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the description need not repeat those. It adds valuable behavioral context: contract state is read live from Solana, holders from largest accounts, market from DexScreener, and pricing ($0.005 per call, 10 free/day). This is beyond annotations and informs the agent about cost and data freshness. No contradictions.

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 moderately long but efficient; each sentence adds detail about what the score covers and where data comes from. It is front-loaded with the core outcome (0-100 rug-risk score) and avoids fluff. Slightly dense but well-structured.

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 tool with no output schema, the description clearly explains what the tool returns (a score) and the data sources, which is sufficient for an agent to know what to expect. It does not detail the exact score interpretation or error cases, but given the complexity and annotations, it is reasonably complete.

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?

The schema has 100% description coverage for the single parameter (mint) with a regex pattern. The description does not add further detail about the parameter beyond what the schema provides, but that is acceptable given full schema coverage. The baseline of 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+resource: computes a 0-100 rug-risk score for any Solana token. It enumerates the risk factors (mint/freeze authority, Token-2022 traps, holder concentration, liquidity depth, pump.fun curve flags) which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like price or wallet_holdings.

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 implies when to use it: for assessing rug risk on any Solana token, and it clarifies scope (any token, not just pump.fun). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the specificity of the purpose and the mention of pump.fun integration make usage clear. Missing explicit 'use X instead for Y' guidance.

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