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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: 3 free calls/day followed by $0.0025 USDC via x402 with in-band payment through params._meta, proxy auto-resolution (EIP-1967, ZeppelinOS) to the implementation's own ABI, and bytecode-derived selectors named via OpenChain for unverified contracts. These are the operational facts an agent cannot get from the schema or annotations.

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?

It is dense but every sentence carries information an agent needs: pricing constraint, resolution behavior, verified/unverified paths, and sibling routing. Leading with the paywall is slightly unusual but defensible since it gates invocation; a little unpacking of the proxy/fallback chain would improve scan-ability.

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 an output schema present, return shapes need not be restated, and the description covers the parts that matter: cost model, chain scope, proxy dereferencing, unverified-contract degradation, and the reduced-payload option. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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%, so the enums and defaults are already documented. The description still adds meaning beyond the schema for abi=false ('returns signatures only (smaller)') and explains that proxies yield the implementation's ABI, which changes what address resolution actually returns.

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 names a specific verb and resource: a Base or Ethereum contract address resolves to ABI, function selectors/signatures, event topics, and proxy implementation ABIs. It also distinguishes itself from the closest siblings, naming wallet-profile for balances and token-risk for ERC-20 privilege checks.

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?

There is an explicit 'When to use' clause scoped to agents that need to call or decode an unseen contract, plus two named alternatives with the conditions that select them (balances/account type, ERC-20 dangerous privileges). Nothing is left to inference about routing.

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