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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the data sources (on-chain reads of Uniswap/Aerodrome pools), the heuristic nature of the verdict, the specific things it deliberately does NOT check, and the cost/rate model (free daily tier, $0.01/call via x402). This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the action and intent, followed by inputs and limitations, then cost. Dense but every clause is informative; slightly long but no 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?

No output schema exists, so the description must explain the return value, and it does: verdict values (ok, caution, avoid, unknown) with reasons. Combined with the disclosed limitations and pricing, an agent has everything needed to call it and interpret results.

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?

Only one parameter exists and the schema already documents it fully (pattern-validated Base address), so the description adds no syntax or format detail beyond it. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Screen a token contract on Base') plus the triggering intent ('before an agent buys it'). It further enumerates exactly what is read (ERC-20 metadata, owner, proxy, mint/pause/blacklist/fee selectors, DEX liquidity) and what is returned, so no sibling could be confused with it.

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?

It gives a clear use context ('before an agent buys it') and explicit exclusions ('does not simulate a sell, read tax rates or check pool age'), which helps an agent decide whether this tool suffices. It stops short of naming a specific alternative sibling for cases the screen does not cover.

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