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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint; the description adds quota (3 free calls/day across all tools), pricing ($0.005 USDC via x402 or card credits), the in-band payment parameter, data provenance (GoPlus + DexScreener), the LLM-rephrasing/rule-based fallback behavior, and a 'not financial advice' disclaimer. This is substantial disclosure beyond 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?

One dense paragraph split into pricing, output, sources, and usage-routing segments, so it is front-loaded and scannable. It is longer than most definitions and the pricing preamble precedes the purpose statement, costing a little immediacy.

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?

For a 2-parameter read-only tool with an output schema and annotations, nothing an agent needs is missing: scope, chains, data sources, payment handling, fallback behavior, and sibling routing are all present. Return-value details are correctly left to the output schema.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning not in the schema: the chain parameter is framed as 'Base or Ethereum' and the out-of-schema payment channel params._meta["x402/payment"] is documented. The address parameter itself gains nothing beyond the schema.

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: scores one ERC-20 token 0-100 with an AI verdict, risk level, flags, taxes, holders, owner status and liquidity. It also names the supported chains and distinguishes itself from four sibling tools by name, so an agent can pick it without opening schemas.

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?

Explicit 'When to use' section plus a full routing table to alternatives: rug-check for pass/fail, token-compare for two tokens, token-portfolio for up to 20, token-risk for bytecode analysis. Both the selection condition and the exclusions are stated.

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