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

Goes well beyond the read-only/idempotent annotations by disclosing the paid-call economics ($0.002 via x402, USDC on Base, Base-only payments), the no-charge-on-failure policy for bad input or RPC outages, and an explicit prompt-injection warning that returned content is untrusted third-party data. These are material behaviors an agent cannot infer from 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 and scoping, then packs payment, error, and safety semantics into short clauses with no filler sentences. Slightly dense and run-on, but each clause carries distinct information.

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 still enumerates the returned fields (paused flags, supply, supply cap, multiplier, issuer, token address), plus failure behavior and payment mechanics. An agent has everything needed to invoke and interpret this correctly.

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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuinely useful semantics: accepted forms (bare ticker AAPL, suffixed AAPLc, or Base token address) and the meaning of omission (all 13 listed stocks).

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+resource ("Tokenized stock status check for Base") and immediately scopes what it covers: Coinbase tokenized stocks like AAPLc, NVDAc, TSLAc. It also explicitly excludes price data, which cleanly separates it from siblings such as market_quote or market_search.

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 concrete usage context: pass an optional symbol in any of three forms, or omit it to get all 13. It implies but never names the alternative tool to use for pricing, so the routing guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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