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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new information — the per-call cost of $0.01 and the fact that socials are returned alongside the category — but says nothing about what happens for unrecognized tokens or unsupported chains.

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 short clauses: the category enumeration first, then the cost. No filler, and the expensive/surprising detail (price) is placed where it is easy to see.

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 two-parameter read with no output schema, the description covers the category vocabulary, the side output (socials), and the cost, which is enough to call it correctly. Only edge-case behavior for unknown tokens or ambiguous addresses is left unstated.

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 coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents the multi-chain address formats and the optional chain override with a full list URL. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the 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 names the resource (a token) and the specific operation — assigning it to one of an enumerated set of narrative categories — and adds that socials come back too. That distinguishes it from siblings like check_token_security or check_token_holders, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer you call this when you need to know what narrative bucket a token belongs to. There is no statement of when to prefer it over get_coin_dossier or compare_tokens, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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