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

Beyond readOnly/openWorld/idempotent annotations, it discloses behavior that materially affects the call: fail-closed semantics ('An unknown agent never returns TRUST'), cross-chain aggregation with the per-chain breakdown in signals.multichain, and cost ($0.01 REST endpoint). This is the kind of context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Front-loaded with the decision and verdict, then the when-to-use rule, then mechanics. A few words are marketing filler ('pre-transaction firewall for the agent economy'), but nothing is repeated wastefully given the tool's complexity.

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?

The description covers decision semantics, chain routing, Solana fallback, fail-closed behavior, cost, and REST path; return structure is backed by an output schema and the one field an agent must know (signals.multichain) is called out. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 0%, so the description has to carry the params, and it does: agent_id, chain_id with enumerated IDs (8453 Base, 1 Ethereum, 196 X Layer), solana_asset as the alternative, and crosschain defaulting to true. That is meaningful compensation for a completely undocumented schema.

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 concrete verb ('decide whether to PAY or transact with an unknown agent'), the exact resource (an agent's trust), and the output shape (TRUST / CAUTION / UNTRUSTED / UNKNOWN plus reasons and 0-100 score). It explicitly separates itself from the two closest siblings, should_i_pay and get_agent_trust_passport, so an agent can choose without opening either schema.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('Call it before paying or integrating an unknown agent') and names the alternatives with their selecting conditions: should_i_pay when the reasoning and kill criteria are needed, get_agent_trust_passport for the full dossier. The Solana branch ('pass solana_asset instead of agent_id') is also stated up front.

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