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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden, and it does disclose genuinely useful behavior: the output is deterministic, yields a PROCEED/ABORT verdict plus a forensic report, and is gated behind x402 v2 payment on Base Mainnet (eip155:8453) at two price points. What it omits is material: how the $0.10 vs $0.15 tier is selected (no parameter appears to control it), what happens on payment failure, and whether insufficient or malformed AMM/leverage inputs still cost the fee.

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 entire definition is one overloaded sentence with stacked parentheticals, and roughly half its length is pricing and payment-rail detail rather than tool semantics. The most decision-relevant content (what gets computed) competes with commercial boilerplate instead of being front-loaded. Pricing could be compressed to a single clause.

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 paid compute tool with two nested object parameters and no output schema, the description should clarify required inputs and the shape of the verdict. It explains the deliverable at a high level but never states which inputs are mandatory (schema says none are required, which is itself surprising) or how the two output tiers map to the call. An agent could not confidently construct a correct invocation from this.

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?

Top-level schema description coverage is 0% - neither the 'amm' nor the 'leverage' object carries a description - and the tool description never mentions that callers must supply pool reserves, input amount, or leverage/entry price. Nested properties happen to be documented inside the schema, but the description adds nothing about which nested fields drive the slippage versus liquidation computation. For a two-object nested schema this leaves a real interpretive gap.

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 does name concrete computations - BigInt AMM slippage, MEV sandwich detection, and liquidation guard - so the resource is identifiable. However, the core verb is buried under marketing framing ('Unlocks deterministic PROCEED/ABORT signal & forensic report'), and the second half of the sentence is pricing rather than purpose. No sibling differentiation is offered even though several sibling tools also produce token/protocol risk verdicts.

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 no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ingravity_fastPingAddressSafety or ingravity_inspectEvmTransactionFirewall, and no preconditions (e.g., that a valid pool state must be supplied for meaningful results). Usage is only inferable from the list of computed quantities. The only context given is commercial (payment tier), not situational.

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