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

Annotation Contradiction: readOnlyHint=true conflicts with the description's explicit statement that the call is paid and charges $0.01 USDC via x402 from the user's wallet, which is a side effect. The description does transparently disclose the heuristic nature, but the contradiction with the read-only annotation dominates this dimension.

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 two sentences: the first front-loads the core output and scope, the second covers cost, payment mechanism, and disclaimer. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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, no-output-schema tool, it lists the key return fields, payment cost and mechanism, and the optional payment_signature path. The schema's payment_signature description references get_payment_quote, so an agent has the full workflow needed to 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already defines mint and payment_signature adequately. The description adds contextual payment information but no new parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides, hence the baseline 3.

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 uses a concrete verb and resource ('Pre-trade safety grade for a Solana SPL mint') and enumerates a specific output list (PASS/FLAG/FAIL, verdict, tier, authorities, RugCheck risks, etc.). The 'Solana' qualifier and safety-grade focus distinguish it from sibling robinhood_token_safety_check.

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 clearly frames when to use the tool: before a trade on a Solana SPL mint, and it explains the payment flow (omit payment_signature to receive an offer). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but sibling context and the Solana-specific framing provide enough context.

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