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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds information annotations cannot convey: a $0.01 USDC cost on Base, charged per successful call, settled via x402. It also discloses what is inspected (EIP-1967 and minimal-proxy detection, bytecode scanning for mint/pause/blacklist/fee-setter). The readOnlyHint=false annotation is not contradicted, since the call settles a payment.

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?

Three front-loaded sentences in a logical order: what is returned, when to use it, what it costs. Each sentence earns its place and the cost/warning is not buried. The return-value enumeration is dense but justified given there is no output schema.

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 must carry the return payload, and it does so comprehensively (fields, ownership/renouncement, pause state, proxy implementation/admin, bytecode heuristics). Combined with the usage context and the payment disclosure, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Token contract address on Base (0x...)'), so the schema already carries the semantics. The description corroborates the Base/ERC-20 scope but adds no format, validation, or edge-case detail beyond it. Baseline 3 applies.

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 states a precise verb-and-resource ('Live on-chain facts for any ERC-20 token on Base') and enumerates the exact data returned (name, symbol, decimals, supply, owner, renouncement, pause, proxy detection, bytecode heuristics). It is far more specific than the bare tool name 'token', but it never distinguishes itself from the sibling 'token-report', so an agent cannot tell them apart on description alone.

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 use context: 'token due diligence and rug-pull or honeypot screening before a swap.' That is a genuine when-to-use signal, but there are no exclusions or named alternatives (e.g. token-report, contract-risk, liquidity-pool-audit), which are exactly the tools an agent would weigh against this one.

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