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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint; the description adds genuinely new behavioral facts — it is a paid call at 0.0300 USDC that is 'always paid' (no free tier), it performs an aggregation of two tool outputs in one call, and it warns the output is 'objective signals, not a verdict.' It stops short of latency, data staleness, or what happens on unsupported/failed addresses, keeping it off a 5.

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?

Roughly three sentences, front-loaded with 'FULL token check (BUNDLE)' so the bundle nature lands first, followed by composition, substitution rule, and price. Dense parenthetical equalities ('= liquidity-health') are efficient but make the middle clause 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?

No output schema exists, so the description must describe returns — and it does, enumerating the three data families and the USD quote-side liquidity framing. Combined with the disclosed price and the 'not a verdict' caveat, an agent has everything needed to decide and call 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?

With a single required parameter and 100% schema description coverage ('ERC-20 token contract address (0x...) on Base'), the schema already carries the full burden. The description adds no address format or chain constraint beyond it, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

A specific verb and resource ('FULL token check'), with the composed data sources spelled out: GoPlus risk flags, contract/proxy/owner facts, and Uniswap v3 pools quoted against WETH/USDC in USD. It explicitly maps itself to the two siblings it bundles (liquidity-health, contract-profile), so an agent can place it in the toolset without opening 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 gives an explicit decision rule: prefer this over calling liquidity-health and contract-profile separately, and use the individual tools 'only if you need just one aspect.' That is a complete when-to-use / when-not-to-use / alternative structure, plus the cost condition that governs invocation.

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