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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, and the description is consistent, adding that it 'reads or computes only and changes nothing'. It contributes genuinely new behavior beyond annotations: the x402/card pricing model, first 25 calls free, failed calls free, and the note that repeated calls are charged — which explains the idempotentHint=false flag. Missing only return-shape or latency/liveness caveats, largely covered by the field enumeration.

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 chain restriction, then the returned fields, then usage, then pricing — a sensible order for an agent scanning it. It is dense but each sentence carries information; the field enumeration is slightly list-heavy but justified since no output schema exists.

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 fully compensates by enumerating every returned field and the risk heuristics, including proxy implementation/admin details. Cost and free-tier behavior are also stated, so an agent knows both what it gets and what it costs before calling.

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% for the single 'address' parameter, so the schema already carries the meaning. The description adds value beyond it with a concrete worked example address and the Base-only constraint, clarifying that the address must be a Base contract, though it does not state what happens for a non-contract or wrong-chain address.

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 ('Live on-chain facts for an ERC-20 token on Base') and enumerates the exact fields returned: name, symbol, decimals, supply, owner, renounced/paused state, proxy detection with implementation and admin, and bytecode heuristics. It also disambiguates from other chains by naming the '<chain>_token_info' pattern, so an agent can separate it from token_report or token_supply.

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?

Explicitly says to use it 'for token due diligence and rug-pull or honeypot screening before a swap', giving a clear trigger context, and routes other chains to the '<chain>_token_info' alternative. It does not explain when to prefer sibling tools like contract_risk, token_report or pack_token_analysis, so the differentiation against same-chain siblings is left to inference.

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