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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, the description discloses the paid nature ($0.01 USDC via x402 from YOUR wallet), the heuristic nature ('not financial advice'), and a detailed list of checks performed. This gives the agent a strong behavioral model of what will happen when invoked, including a financial side effect.

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 dense but efficient: three sentences pack the purpose, checks, payment model, and disclaimer. It front-loads the core purpose before the enumeration. Slightly long but every clause earns its place.

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?

For a paid, multi-faceted tool with no output schema, the description covers the request mode (token + optional payment signature), the payment mechanism, and the content of the report. It does not describe the exact return structure, but the enumeration of signals/verdicts/tiers gives a good picture. The schema fills the remaining gap about the 402 offer behavior.

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 both parameters fully (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context by explaining the payment flow and pointing to get_payment_quote for signing the payment signature, going beyond the schema's description.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Pre-trade safety grade for a Robinhood Chain (4663) ERC-20', then enumerates the exact checks performed. It clearly differentiates from the Solana sibling by naming the chain directly, leaving no ambiguity about scope.

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 context is clear: use this before trading a Robinhood Chain token, and it is paid via x402. It references get_payment_quote for signing the payment signature, but does not explicitly state when to use alternatives like the sample reports or the Solana version. This is clear context without explicit exclusions or alternative routing.

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