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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond this: it is 'Powered by DexScreener's public API,' requires 'No key, no wallet, no on-chain node,' and mentions a cost of '$0.01/call, x402 (USDC on base).' This tells the agent about dependencies, auth requirements, and financial costs, which is useful for invocation decisions.

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?

The description is two sentences plus a pricing note, each part earning its place. The core functionality is front-loaded, followed by operational details (API, no auth, cost). No fluff or redundancy; it is appropriately sized for 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?

For a read-only lookup tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: purpose, data source, authentication, cost, and the key output metrics. It does not describe error handling or response format, but the output fields are already listed. This is adequate given the tool's simplicity and the rich parameter schema.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with each parameter clearly described (tokens, maxAgeHours, maxConcurrency, minLiquidityUsd). The description itself does not add semantic detail to these parameters; it only mentions output fields, not input filtering options. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Look up any token contract address or ticker across DEXes and get liquidity, 24h volume, pair age, a 0-100 quality score and risk flags.' This provides a specific verb (look up), a resource (tokens across DEXes), and the exact output metrics. It distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing DEX coverage and the quality score/risk flags.

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 description gives clear context for when to use this tool: when you need token data across DEXes. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the phrase 'across DEXes' implies it is not for CEX data. No direct comparison to siblings like rug-pull-scorer or live-price-oracle, so it misses the 'when-not-to-use' differentiation that would earn a 5.

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