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

Annotations already establish readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description goes well beyond them by disclosing cost ($0.005/call), a free tier with a concrete limit (10/day), the post-quota behavior (payment-required result listing x402 options), and error semantics (isError on invalid input or upstream failure, not charged). These are exactly the operational traits an agent needs before invoking a paid external 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?

Three tight sentences with distinct jobs: what it does, when to use it, and operational caveats (price/errors). The verdict is front-loaded and no sentence is 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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is not required, and the description still hints at the return shape (risk level + reasons). With a single fully-documented parameter, annotations covering safety, and pricing/error behavior spelled out, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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?

Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the Base58 pattern and length. The description adds the contextual framing that the wallet is a Solana counterparty, but no extra syntax or format guidance. 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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource+scope: 'One-call verdict on a Solana wallet', then enumerates the verdict classes (serial token launcher, fast dumper, trading bot, clean) and the data sources (pump.fun launch history + trading profile). This clearly separates it from siblings like pump_wallet, address_check, and token_risk.

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?

Explicit 'When to use: Before sending to or trading with a Solana wallet' states the trigger condition, and 'for full trade stats use pump_wallet' names the alternative and the circumstance that selects it. Nothing is left to inference.

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