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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses HTTP error semantics (404 for unknown ids, 400 for invalid args, 503 during refresh) and payments charged only on a 200 at $0.02 USDC via x402. It stops short of describing return structure or freshness beyond the 503 note.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource and returned dimensions before error and payment details. Dense but nearly every clause (error codes, payment terms) is decision-relevant for an agent.

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 one-param tool with no output schema, the description adequately enumerates returned fields and covers cost and failure modes. Only a richer sense of the response shape or data freshness cadence is missing.

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 slug property is documented with examples, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds only that unknown ids yield a 404, which is marginal value beyond what is already provided.

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 resource ('risk profile of one protocol on Base') and enumerates the dimensions returned (age, TVL, audits, governance, opportunity risk). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_stablecoin_risk and get_opportunity_score.

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?

'Useful for due diligence on a protocol' implies a usage context, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives guidance. It never points to sibling tools such as get_stablecoin_risk or get_opportunity_card for related questions.

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