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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely extra operational context the annotations cannot: data sources (GoPlus + DexScreener), a 5-minute cache, deterministic output, and a $0.01/call cost. It stops short of stating failure modes (e.g. unsupported chain, unindexed token) or latency, so not a full 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?

Front-loaded with the decision moment and the required input before any detail; a single dense sentence. The long flag enumeration earns its place by telling the agent what the verdict actually contains, but it is the reason this is not a 5.

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, yet the description documents the return shape thoroughly (verdict tiers, score range, named flags, sources, cache TTL). Coverage of the calling contract is strong; only edge-case behavior on bad or unsupported addresses is unaddressed.

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, including base-as-default-for-0x and base58 auto-detection for Solana. The description's chain enumeration and EVM-default note largely restate the schema, 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?

States a specific verb and resource (submit a token contract address, receive a risk verdict) plus the exact output vocabulary (DANGER/HIGH_RISK/CAUTION/LOW_RISK, 0-100 score, named flags). No sibling tool covers token contract risk, and the description makes that scope explicit rather than generic.

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?

Opens with the trigger context ('Before buying, sniping or routing a swap') and closes with an explicit exclusion ('Use for one token contract's risk checks; not a price or a recommendation'), which routes the agent away from price_for and any advisory use. When-to-use and when-not-to-use are both present.

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