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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds important behavioral context beyond annotations: it is pay-per-call via x402 USDC on Base, and a missing payment yields a payment challenge in the response.

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 short and front-loads the calculation types before the payment note. It is efficient, though the first sentence is a cryptic fragment rather than a fully structured statement.

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 values need not be explained, and the payment model is disclosed. However, the description does not explain what each edge type computes or when to choose among them, leaving a gap 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 documented in the schema with the same calculation types. The description repeats that list without adding syntax, defaults, or selection guidance, so the schema carries the parameter semantics.

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 the resource ('Net edge') and lists calculation types, but uses a fragment rather than a clear verb+resource statement. It does not distinguish this tool from siblings such as funding or predictions, leaving the agent to infer that it computes an edge metric for the named strategies.

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?

No when-to-use guidance or alternatives are provided. The description only lists calculation types and payment details; it never says when an agent should call this tool instead of related siblings.

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