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

With no annotations, it discloses key behavior: free call, returned fields (risk_level, pass/warn/fail counts, four headline flags), and paid report endpoint/price. It omits auth/rate-limit/side-effect details, but the read-only nature is strongly implied by 'check' and the output disclosure is substantial.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and the return/cost details are useful, but the single run-on sentence packs in promotional price comparison and a date that do not help an agent call the tool. It is informative but overstuffed.

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?

Covers purpose, output summary, and pricing, which matters because there is no output schema. Still missing sibling differentiation and clear guidance on combining chain/token/address means the definition is not fully complete for invocation.

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 67%, and the description mainly restates token format ('token=chain:address') already documented in the schema. It does not resolve why all three params are optional or when to use token vs address, leaving invocation ambiguity.

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—token risk check—and enumerates risk types and scope (one Base or Solana token). It does not distinguish from the near-identical sibling check_token_risk, so selection between them remains ambiguous.

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?

Describes free summary use and points to a paid x402 full-report URL, implying when the free check is sufficient. It never explicitly compares this tool with sibling check_token_risk or states when not to use it.

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