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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does well: it states determinism ('same contract, same answer'), that output is evidence (exact selector and byte offset) rather than a verdict, and the commercial terms ($0.01 per call over x402 USDC). It does not cover failure/error behavior for unsupported chains or invalid addresses, leaving some gaps.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then capabilities, then the differentiator, then pricing. Every sentence adds information an agent needs; no filler or repetition.

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 two-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description explains what comes back (selector evidence plus offset) and the cost model, which is substantial. Minor gaps remain around behavior on malformed input or unsupported chains, but nothing critical 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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented, making 3 the baseline. The description restates the supported chains and the ERC20-address nature of the token parameter but adds no syntax, casing, or default-chain detail 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 ('Pre-trade risk check for any ERC20'), enumerates exactly what it detects (mint, pause, blacklist, proxy, mutable tax powers), and contrasts itself with 'LLM-written verdicts'. However, it never names or differentiates from its closest sibling, evm_token_info, which an agent could plausibly confuse it with.

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?

'Pre-trade' and 'an agent can apply its own policy' imply the usage context, so the when-to-use is inferable. But there are no explicit exclusions, no named alternative tool, and no conditions distinguishing it from evm_token_info or evm_call for contract inspection.

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