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

Annotations only declare readOnly/openWorld; the description adds substantial context beyond them: pricing (3 free calls/day, $0.0075 USDC via x402 or card, paid in-band through params._meta), the data sources (GoPlus flag/honeypot simulation + DexScreener liquidity/volume), and the rule-based AI-verdict fallback. It also notes every flag names its source field, which tells the agent how to trust the output.

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 single block is dense and useful, but it front-loads the pricing/payment mechanics ahead of the actual purpose, forcing the agent to read past billing details before learning what the tool does. Every fact earns its place, yet the ordering and the run-on compression hurt scanability.

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 the description needn't restate return shapes, and it still covers data provenance, the AI-verdict/rule-based fallback, payment requirements, and chain scope. An agent has everything needed to decide and call 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 100% and all three parameters are described in the schema, including the chain enum. The description only echoes the supported chains ('Base or Ethereum') and adds no address format or semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Token risk comparison: two ERC-20 tokens side by side: which has the lower risk score and why') and enumerates the compared dimensions. An agent can distinguish this comparative tool from single-token siblings like token_risk or rug_check from the description alone.

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 an explicit trigger: 'When to use: Use token-compare when an agent must choose between two tokens.' That is a clear selection condition, but it names no alternatives (e.g., token_risk for a single token) and gives no when-not-to-use case, so it falls short of a 5.

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