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

The description discloses critical behavioral traits beyond the annotations: the $0.002 payment requirement, the 402 challenge flow, automatic payment via the npm package, and the no-charge behavior on 4xx/5xx failures. It also clarifies that a failed call after payment settles nothing, which is important financial context.

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 dense sentences front-load the paid nature and returned fields, then cover the payment flow and error semantics. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant restating of the schema.

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?

The description covers what the tool returns, how payment works, what happens without payment, and error/charging behavior. An output schema exists, so return-value details are already structured. The tool is fully specified for an agent 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds substantial meaning to the payment parameter: omit it on the first call, use the returned payloadTemplate on the second, and send it as the PAYMENT-SIGNATURE header rather than body data. This goes well beyond the schema's base64 description.

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 states a specific verb-resource pair: returns name, symbol, decimals, and total supply for any ERC-20 contract on Base. It also distinguishes itself from sibling pricing/safety tools by calling these 'identity fields an agent needs before pricing or safety-checking a token.'

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 description clearly indicates when to use this tool: before pricing or safety-checking a token, when identity fields are needed. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is strong enough for an agent to select it correctly.

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