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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose key traits: the call itself is a free preview with limited scope, and a full report requires x402 payment at two distinct price points and endpoints. It does not describe rate limits, failure modes, or what the preview actually returns versus the paid report.

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?

Two sentences: the first states scope and the preview/paid distinction, the second states costs and endpoints. Zero filler, and the core capability is front-loaded before pricing detail.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers cost and scope but leaves the return shape entirely unspecified — an agent cannot tell what a "risk preview" yields, which matters since there is no output schema to fall back on.

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 50% — address is documented in the schema and chain is an enum. The description corroborates the chain semantics by naming Base and Solana, but adds no format or constraint detail beyond what the schema already encodes.

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?

It names a concrete resource and outcome: a free token risk preview covering rug check, honeypot, and scam screening for exactly one Base or Solana token. The contrast with the sibling is stated as "explicit chain + address," which tells an agent what differs structurally, though "Same as check_token" leans on a tool the agent may not have inspected.

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 phrase "same as check_token with explicit chain + address" implies the selection rule (use this when you supply chain and address directly), but it never states when to prefer check_token or when this tool is not appropriate. The pricing tiers give useful cost context but are not usage guidance.

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