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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations, the description discloses latency (20-60 s), async support, per-chain completeness caveats, and a billing condition ('if the contract cannot be read you are not charged') plus an explicit price. Cost and the non-charge fallback are behaviors no annotation conveys, and they directly affect whether an agent should invoke it.

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?

Content is front-loaded into a single dense inventory of report sections followed by operational facts (chains, latency, billing, price), and almost every clause carries a distinct fact. It is long but not padded, though the legal disclaimer and x402 pricing sentence add bulk that a shorter form could compress.

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 no output schema, the description correctly carries the return burden by naming the 1-10 risk score, verdict, sourced flags and PDF link. It also covers chains, timing, async, and cost. Gaps are minor: webhook_url behavior is undocumented and sibling disambiguation is absent.

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 coverage is 67%, and the description adds real meaning: it explains why 'website' exists (domain age and link safety), confirms 'pdf' returns a 7-day link, restates the chain list, and clarifies 'async=true' has server support. The only parameter left wholly unaddressed in both schema and description is webhook_url.

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 names a specific verb+resource and enumerates exactly what the report covers (contract risk, honeypot simulation, price/history, holders, liquidity/LP lock, OFAC screening, website age, news), so the agent knows precisely what it gets. However, it never differentiates itself from the near-identical siblings token_report, token_verdict and token_scan, which is the one thing an agent most needs to disambiguate here.

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 phrase 'in one call' implicitly positions this as the aggregate alternative to granular siblings (token_price, token_holders, token_liquidity), and per-chain availability plus 'async=true supported' tell the agent when it will work. But there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or named alternative, so the agent must infer the routing decision against token_report and token_verdict.

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