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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden, and it discloses the most important hidden trait: this is a paid call at $0.02 USDC via x402 on eip155:8453, which materially changes how an agent should invoke it. It also describes the shape of the result since no output schema exists. It stops short of stating read-only guarantees, latency, caching, or what happens for a non-contract address.

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?

One dense sentence, front-loaded with the payment requirement before the purpose and the return contents. Every clause carries information; the only cost is that packing payment, scope, chains and output fields into a single sentence makes it slightly harder to scan.

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 explain return values, and it does so concretely by naming the score, the three levels, the five possible flags and the underlying facts. Combined with the payment disclosure, an agent has enough to call it correctly; the gaps are the chain/default mismatch and the absence of sibling routing guidance.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented and a baseline of 3 applies. The description adds marginal value by framing the chain parameter as the 'chosen chain', but it actually narrows the list to Ethereum, Polygon or Arbitrum and omits Base, which the schema lists as the default - a small inconsistency the description does not resolve.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Full security verdict for a token') and enumerates the returned artifacts (0-100 risk score, level, named flags, raw on-chain facts), so an agent knows exactly what it gets. It does not, however, distinguish itself from near-neighbours in the catalogue such as token_control, token_metadata or sanctions_crypto_address, which an agent must infer.

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?

Usage is implied by the phrase 'security verdict' - you call it when you need to assess a token contract - but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative. With siblings like token_metadata and token_control present, an explicit routing hint would have earned a higher score.

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