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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds material context beyond that: the call is paid ($0.015 via x402), the verdict is deterministic, the result includes confidence and a signed receipt, and only three chains are supported. It omits error/payment-failure behavior and rate limits, so it is not fully exhaustive.

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 tight sentences with the core purpose and the return shape front-loaded; every clause carries information. The inline pricing/URL string is dense but serves routing and cost-awareness, so it 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?

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by enumerating the return payload (verdict, reasons, confidence, signed receipt). Given only two parameters and a readOnly annotation, the remaining gaps—verdict scale, payment failure handling, chain default semantics—are modest.

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 only 50%, so the description should carry meaning the schema lacks. Instead, 'Query: address, chain (base|ethereum|bsc)' simply restates the schema's address description and chain enum, adding nothing about the default chain behavior or what address classes are accepted.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: a deterministic on-chain risk verdict for one token/contract address, plus the exact return payload (reasons, confidence, signed receipt). The GET endpoint URL implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling token-risk-post, but the sibling is never named, so differentiation is inferential rather than explicit.

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: 'for one token/contract address' plus the chain enumeration tells an agent the scope, and the GET endpoint hints at the POST variant. There is no explicit statement of when to choose this over token-risk-post, nor any prerequisite or exclusion guidance.

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