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

No annotations exist, and the description carries the full burden well: it discloses the billing model ($0.01 USDC on Base via x402), that the charge applies only to a successful answer, and the distinct failure behaviors (404 for unknown ids, 400 for invalid arguments before any payment, 503 while data refreshes). That is exactly the kind of operational context an agent needs to decide whether and how to call it.

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?

It is front-loaded, with the purpose and the response contents first, followed by usage and the id provenance. There is minor redundancy: the price is stated twice ("charged only for a 200" and "charged only for a successful answer"), and the id source appears in two places, which makes the brief feel slightly padded.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe the return shape, and it does so concretely by naming each section of the breakdown. Combined with the disclosed error codes, billing rules, and id provenance, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly and interpret the result.

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 each parameter carries its own description with default and range, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds little for the inputs: the connection between `capital` and the "position size" figure is only implied, and `duration` is never addressed. Baseline 3 applies per the >80% coverage rule.

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 precisely and enumerates what the response contains: total risk, eight risk dimensions with every factor and its input, sustainability, liquidity, slippage, position size, and confidence. That enumeration distinguishes it from the thin summary offered by get_opportunity_card and from get_protocol_risk, without requiring an agent to open 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?

It states the use case explicitly ("Useful for auditing or explaining a risk score") and it names the prerequisite source: ids come from search_opportunities in this MCP server, or from the free /api/v1/opportunities route. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it, such as a pointer to get_opportunity_card for lightweight lookups, and it leaves the choice between this tool and get_protocol_risk to inference.

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