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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is a pure read from stored history, does not make a live upstream call, and does not count against quota. It also notes the hourly granularity and max 90 days, which are useful behavioral details. It does not mention error handling or edge cases, but the coverage is solid for the tool's simplicity.

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 concise sentences. The first sentence covers the core purpose and outputs, the second explains the quota and upstream behavior. Every clause adds value, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 tool has a simple interface (2 params, no output schema), and the description lists the returned data fields, which partially compensates for the missing output schema. It explains the time range and quota behavior. It could mention potential default behavior (e.g., default days=30) or pagination, but these are already in the schema for the parameter. Overall, it is adequately complete for the tool's complexity.

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%, with both 'mint' and 'days' having descriptions in the input schema. The description adds no new parameter-level semantics beyond reinforcing that 'days' is capped at 90, which is already in the schema. Therefore, the description meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 returns hourly historical data points with a specific list of fields (safety_score, insider_cluster_count, holder_count, price, liquidity, volume) for a mint, over a time range. It distinguishes itself from siblings (check_token_risk, check_token_risk_batch) by emphasizing the historical nature and the absence of a live upstream call.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: when you need historical data without consuming quota or making a live call. It implicitly contrasts with the sibling tools that likely perform current checks, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or say 'use this instead of X when Y'.

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