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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses a critical behavioral trait: the tool requires payment and will likely not work without a valid payment_tx. However, it does not disclose what happens if payment fails, the exact response format, or whether the tool has side effects (e.g., recording the payment). This is a significant gap.

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 description is one compact sentence that front-loads the payment requirement and summarizes the tool's function and output. Every phrase builds on the previous one, and there is no wasted text. It is efficient and easy to parse.

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 tool has only two parameters and no output schema, which is relatively simple. The description covers the essentials: what it does, the payment requirement, and the input needed. However, it does not describe the diagnosis categories in detail (though it lists them) or the exact structure of the prescription. This is adequate but could be improved with more clarity on outputs.

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 50%: the 'wallet' parameter is described as '0x address', but 'payment_tx' has no description. The description clarifies that payment_tx is the payment transaction, which adds some meaning, but it does not specify the format or how it is used. With coverage at 50%, the description partially compensates but not fully.

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 purpose: it performs diagnostics for an agent wallet on Base, checking on-chain vitals and KHOTEM ledger history, and provides a diagnosis and prescription. This is clear and distinguishes it from sibling tools like khotem_status or khotem_gate, though it doesn't explicitly name them.

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 states that payment is required first, and the agent must pass payment_tx after paying. It also implies the tool is used for diagnostic purposes, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternative tools, though the context of the sibling names suggests alternatives. This is adequate for a paid tool.

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