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

Annotations already declare readOnly/destructive/openWorld, and the description adds materially beyond them: per-call pricing ($0.03/call, first 25 free, failed calls free) and the explicit warning that repeats are not free, which explains the idempotentHint=false. It also discloses chain-dependent behavior — honeypot and contract risk checks only on Base — and confirms 'changes nothing' for an open-world external call.

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?

Front-loaded with the highest-value clause (what one call returns) and each subsequent sentence covers a distinct need: inputs, when to use, example, cost. The parenthetical risk-check list and the pricing sentence are dense but earn their place; the whole thing runs long for a 2-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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe returns itself — and it does, naming every field class the agent will get back plus the chain-conditional risk block. Combined with cost and safety disclosure, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly and to justify the spend.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: the token param accepts either a ticker or a 0x contract address, and the chain param governs which checks run (Base unlocks honeypot/blacklist/owner-fee analysis). It omits the 'base is default' detail the schema carries, which is why it isn't a 5.

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?

Starts with a specific verb+resource ("One call to analyse an ERC-20 token") and enumerates the exact outputs: metadata, supply, USD price from the deepest Uniswap v3 pool, proxy/upgrade authority, and chain-specific risk checks. This clearly separates it from narrower siblings like price_token, token_supply, and contract_risk without the agent needing to open their schemas.

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?

Gives an explicit triggering condition: "Use before buying, listing or accepting an unknown token," which tells the agent the decision context. It also specifies the required inputs (ticker or 0x address plus network) and gives a worked example, but never names the sibling alternatives it supersedes, so the routing guidance stops short of a full when-not-what-instead statement.

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