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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the disclosure burden. It states the tool is deterministic, returns a verdict with evidence categories, requires a two-step paid call flow (get terms, sign, then call again with x_payment), and notes the free pricing alternative. This is comprehensive for a paid API tool.

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?

Two sentences deliver the core functionality, both usage modes, payment procedure, and an alternative tool reference. No wasted words; front-loaded with purpose, then usage, then payment. Ideal density.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description listsspecific evidence types returned. It covers all input variants, the payment workflow, and network scope (Ethereum mainnet). For a tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, this is highly complete and self-sufficient.

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 all 4 parameters with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds valuable semantics beyond the schema by explaining the x_payment flow (omit for terms, include to settle) and explicitly distinguishing wallet vs contract usage, raising it above baseline.

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 'Deterministic scam checklist with a verdict and evidence', which clearly states the tool's function and output. It names specific evidence types (spam flags, copymint collisions, holder concentration) and distinguishes its dual scope (collection vs wallet), setting it apart from sibling tools like token_safety.

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 explicitly explains when to use each input mode: 'Pass a collection contract to check the collection, or a wallet to check that wallet's whole scam exposure holding by holding.' It also describes the payment flow and cross-references the alternative `pricing` tool for free price listings, providing clear context and exclusions.

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