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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context about real-time scanning and cross-chain coverage, but does not disclose details like data freshness, rate limits, or chain-specific availability. This is acceptable given the strong annotation coverage.

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 description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant filler. The parenthetical pricing note is additional context that is useful for an agent deciding whether to invoke a paid tool, and it does not detract from the core purpose.

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?

The description, combined with a full input schema and an output schema, covers all necessary information for invoking the tool: what it scans, which chains it covers, and the key filter concept. Minor details such as chain-specific limitations are absent, but they are not essential for a read-only scanner with fully specified parameters.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description mentions the concept of arbitrage spread, which aligns with minSpreadPct, but it does not add any parameter-specific syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides. A baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Scans') and resource ('liquidity depth, swap fees, and arbitrage spread opportunities') across two named chains, Base and Solana. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tools, which focus on audits, remediation, governance, and signals rather than DEX market analytics.

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?

The description makes the tool's context clear: it is for cross-chain DEX liquidity and arbitrage spread scanning. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but since no sibling tool directly overlaps with this functionality, the implied usage scenario is sufficiently unambiguous.

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