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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true), and the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: a per-call price (0.0100 USDC, first call free) and the expectation-setting 'Returns objective signals, not a verdict.' That pricing detail is the kind of thing annotations cannot convey. It stops short of noting rate limits or what happens on an unsupported token.

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?

A dense, front-loaded sentence names the scope and the three data sources, followed by two short sentences for the output stance and pricing. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by naming the three signal categories returned (risk flags, on-chain facts, pool liquidity in USD). Combined with pricing and the read-only annotation, an agent has everything needed to call it 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?

Only one parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents the tokenAddress format (ERC-20, 0x..., on Base). The description adds no syntax or constraint detail beyond that, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 verb+resource (due diligence for an ERC-20 on Base) and enumerates exactly what is aggregated: GoPlus risk flags, on-chain facts (supply, owner, proxy), and Uniswap v3 pools vs WETH/USDC. The 'Replaces three separate calls' line lets an agent distinguish it from siblings like contract-profile and liquidity-health 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?

The 'one-call' framing plus 'Replaces three separate calls' gives a clear signal that this is the consolidated entry point rather than the narrower sibling tools. However, it never states an explicit when-not-to-use case or names the siblings it supersedes, so routing still requires a small inference.

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