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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses the return format (0-100 risk score with itemised flags) and the pricing model (0.20 USDC per call via x402). It stops short of stating that the operation is read-only/non-mutating and any latency or rate-limit behavior, leaving those to inference.

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?

Four tight sentences that front-load the purpose, then inspection scope, return format, and cost. No filler; 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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by describing the return (risk score plus itemised flags), and the payment flow is covered in the schema. Sufficient for correct invocation; only the non-mutation guarantee and latency are absent.

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 67% and the schema itself documents the address format and the paymentProof flow in detail. The description adds nothing param-specific, so the schema does the heavy lifting — baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Rug-pull / honeypot check') and enumerates exactly what is inspected (mint/freeze authority, token-2022 extensions, proxy/ownership, privileged functions, holder concentration). Clearly a token security audit, wholly distinct from the swap/orderbook siblings.

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?

Provides a clear timing cue ('before you buy a token'), which tells the agent exactly when to invoke it. It offers no explicit exclusions or named alternatives, but the siblings are different domains so this is minor.

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