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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the notable behavioral fact that each call costs 0.005 USDC via x402, which is real value beyond structured fields. However, it omits how many tokens 'Top' returns, whether results are ranked or paginated, and any failure modes beyond the 402 flow (which the schema already documents).

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 resource and field list front-loaded, followed by the pricing constraint. No filler, though cramming return fields and cost into one sentence slightly muddles the structure.

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 listing the return fields (chain, address, boost amount, links) and flagging the payment requirement. For a simple two-parameter read tool this is nearly sufficient; only result count/ordering 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 both parameters — chain filter and payment proof — are fully documented in the schema, including the two-step 402 payment flow. The description's 'optionally filtered by chain' merely restates the schema, so 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 a specific resource — top boosted tokens — and enumerates the returned fields (chain, address, boost amount, links), which sets it apart from generic siblings like token_market or dex_search. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with new_token_profiles, another discovery-style tool, but the 'boosted/paid promotion' framing is distinctive enough to guide selection.

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 parenthetical 'paid promotion is an early hype signal' implies a use case (early trend detection) but never states when to prefer this over new_token_profiles or token_market, nor any exclusions. Usage context is inferred rather than directed.

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