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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile needs no restating. The description adds genuinely useful non-schema context: the $0.01 x402 payment model, that scores come from the provider's own sell simulation rather than third-party data, and a not-investment-advice disclaimer. It does not cover latency, failure modes, or what a paid call returns besides the score, so with annotations already carrying the safety burden this lands at an adequate 3.

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 dense and front-loaded, leading with the score scale and direction before the derivation, the use case, the price, and the disclaimer. Every clause carries information, though the colon-separated signal list and trailing disclaimer make it slightly long for a single-parameter tool.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining the return value, and it does so: a 0-100 score with direction, backed by named signal categories. It omits whether component flags or a breakdown come back alongside the number, which leaves a modest gap for a scoring tool.

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%, and the single address parameter already documents its regex format plus the notable behavior that omitting it returns a paid AERO example with example=true. The top-level description adds nothing about the address parameter beyond what the schema states, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 names a specific output (0-100 risk score, higher = riskier) applied to a specific resource (an ERC-20 on Base) and enumerates the signals behind it: liquidity, holder concentration, sell-blocked/tax flags from an on-chain sell simulation. It does not differentiate itself from the sibling tools (rug_check, token_verdict, holder_check, momentum_score), which all plausibly overlap with 'token risk', so it stops short of a 5.

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?

It gives a clear usage context: 'Use before buying or listing an unknown Base token,' which tells the agent the decision this feeds. It offers no explicit exclusions or routing advice versus the very similar sibling tools, so the agent must infer whether rug_check or token_verdict is the better call.

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