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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavior annotations cannot carry: the hard 5-token batch cap, the disclosed output contents (risk rating, red flags, price, liquidity, riskiest named), and the $0.02 USDC per-call x402 payment requirement — a real gating factor for invocation.

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 sentences, zero waste: capability and limits first, use cases second, cost last. Each sentence carries distinct information an agent needs before calling.

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, and the description compensates by naming what comes back (risk rating, red flags, price, liquidity, riskiest token). Combined with the chain list, batch cap, and price, an agent has everything required to select and invoke 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds the accepted chain set (Base, Ethereum, Polygon, Arbitrum, Optimism, Solana) that an agent needs in order to construct a chain:address prefix. It does not restate the comma-separated format, which is already in the schema.

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 ('Batch token risk scan') with hard scope ('up to 5 tokens in one call') and enumerates supported chains. The batch framing distinguishes it from single-token siblings like token_price or token_verdict without needing to open either 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 three concrete use contexts — screening a watchlist, a wallet's holdings, or a list of new launches — which tells the agent when this tool fits. It stops short of explicit exclusions or naming an alternative (e.g. token_verdict) for single-token or deeper analysis, so no 5.

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