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

Annotations cover readOnly/openWorld, but the description adds real behavioral context: it is paid ($0.02 USDC per successful call, not charged on errors) and names its data sources (GoPlus + DexScreener). It does not discuss latency or rate limits, but the pay-per-call nuance is valuable beyond 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 pricing note and the purpose are front-loaded, and the return contents are enumerated compactly. Slightly dense in the single long sentence but every element carries useful information.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description fully enumerates the return shape (score, verdict, red flags with examples, good signs, plain-English summary), which is exactly what the agent needs to interpret results and complete the picture.

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 100% and the schema already documents the address format and the chain enum with a default. The description reinforces which chains are supported but adds no format or syntax details beyond what the schema provides; baseline 3 applies.

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: 'Checks any token on Base, Ethereum or BSC' and returns a safety score, verdict, red flags and summary. The 'Is this token a scam?' framing plus the enumerated chains make it immediately distinguishable from siblings like new_token_safety_feed.

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 scam-question framing implies when to use it, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus new_token_safety_feed or other siblings. No prerequisites or exclusions are stated beyond the implicit chain scope.

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