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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses that the check is heuristic, follows proxies to scan actual bytecode, returns per-rule evidence, and is paid with a specific settlement flow. This provides strong behavioral insight, though it stops short of explicitly stating whether the operation is read-only or has side effects.

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: it opens with the tool's purpose and method, then specifies the output, payment flow, and a pointer to a free alternative. Every sentence carries value with no filler, making it efficient and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema), the description is remarkably complete. It explains the heuristic methodology, the return format (verdict with evidence), the two-step payment process, and the availability of a free pricing alternative. This is sufficient for an agent to understand and invoke the tool 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 input schema already describes all three parameters with high coverage (100%). The description reinforces the x_payment flow but does not add meaningful detail beyond the schema's own explanation of the payment mechanism. It neither clarifies 'chain' nor 'address' further, so the description does not significantly exceed the schema 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 clearly states the tool's function: a heuristic token safety check that follows proxies, scans bytecode, checks ownership/transfer restrictions, and returns a verdict with evidence. This distinctly differentiates it from sibling tools like gas_price or swap_quote, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 description gives clear usage context by explaining the two-step payment flow (call without x_payment for terms, then with x_payment) and points to the free 'pricing' tool as an alternative for price lists. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool versus other safety-related siblings like nft_scam_check.

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