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

Annotations only say read-only and open-world, but the description adds pricing ($0.05 USDC per successful call), the x402 payment channel and supported paying chains, that failed calls are free, the 422 no-charge case for non-tokens or tokens without liquidity, and the ~10,000 transfer ceiling on holder checks. It also discloses caching behavior (stored ultra result answers /scan and /report), which is meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 opening sentence front-loads purpose well, but the body collapses into a long comma-and-parenthesis run-on enumerating 70+ checks and holder metrics. It is dense with useful facts yet structurally flat, making the pricing and 10,000-transfer limits easy to miss.

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 complex paid analysis tool with no output schema, the description covers what is analyzed, cost and payment mechanics, error/non-charge cases, and data limits. It does not describe the response shape or how holder rankings are returned, which is the main remaining gap.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage across all three parameters, the schema already documents chain, fresh, and token semantics, so the baseline applies. The description adds only indirect value by noting chain enumeration (including Arc) and the cost implication of an invalid token, but supplies no additional syntax or format detail.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('deepest token check'), names the four supported chains, and explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by saying it does 'everything /scan does' plus holder concentration analysis. An agent can tell it apart from scan and scan-lite without opening any schema.

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?

Gives clear usage context ('for bigger buys and due diligence') and positions itself as the superset of /scan, which implicitly routes lighter needs to scan-lite/scan. It does not state explicit exclusions or a direct 'use X instead when' rule, so it stops short of a 5.

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