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

Despite no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: no payment required, use of the same v2.0 algorithm as paid endpoints, and the conditional hint behavior for the address parameter. It falls short of a 5 by not mentioning potential rate limits or error conditions, but it carries the transparency burden well.

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 concise and front-loaded: one sentence lists the dataset components, followed by a short alternative-endpoint note and a free-tier confirmation. No wasted words.

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 description covers all necessary context: what data is returned, cost, algorithm equivalence, and the sibling paid endpoint. Since an output schema exists, return-value details are not needed here. Complete for an agent to decide and invoke 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?

The schema already covers 100% of parameter meaning, stating the optional address and its effect. The description adds no further parameter syntax or details, only indirectly clarifies scope via the paid-endpoint comparison. 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?

The description opens with 'Get the aggregate wash-report dataset' and enumerates the specific contents (30-day active buyers, real-volume %, suspected_wash counts, etc.), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like x402_get_trends or x402_search_services by focusing on wash analysis.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: for per-address real-time analysis it directs users to the paid POST /api/v1/wash/check endpoint, and confirms 'Free tier. No payment required.' This clarifies when to use this free aggregate tool versus the paid alternative.

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