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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld), and the description adds value on top: it defines the returned verdict vocabulary (ok/caution/avoid/unknown when data is missing) and discloses cost (0.030 USDC per call, included in subscriptions). That pricing and missing-data behavior goes meaningfully beyond the structured fields.

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 purpose, then the signal set, then the verdict semantics, then pricing — every sentence earns its place with no repetition or filler.

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 carries the burden of explaining returns and does so via the verdict values plus reasons. Cost and unknown-data handling are also covered; only minor gaps remain (e.g., what the 1h/24h deltas look like structurally).

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?

Single parameter with 100% schema coverage, so the schema already documents 'mint' including its pattern. The description only implies a Solana token identifier and adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema; 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 and resource — top holder changes over 1h and 24h from snapshots — and enumerates the concrete signals returned (new/exited holders, concentration shift, large holders selling). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like token_deep_check or wallet_check.

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?

Opens with an explicit use case ('Use to see whether insiders are leaving a Solana token'), giving the agent a clear selection context. It stops short of naming alternatives or exclusions (e.g., when token_deep_check is preferable), so it is clear but not fully routing.

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