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

Goes well beyond annotations by disclosing scope limits (no buy/sell recommendations, no calibrated confidence, no holder-concentration evaluation), the nonce caveat, and the $0.05 USDC x402 cost per successful call. The readOnlyHint=false is not explained (likely due to the payment side effect), leaving a minor gap.

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-loads what the tool combines, then proceeds through limitations, usage, and cost in a logical order. Dense but each sentence carries distinct information, though the enumerated capabilities make it slightly long.

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 correctly explains what is returned ('the underlying indicators separately') and what is deliberately excluded. An agent has enough to decide and call it, though the exact return structure is left implicit.

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% and both parameters are fully documented in the schema, so the description carries no additional parameter burden. It adds no syntax or format meaning beyond what the schema already provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 (combines) and enumerates the exact resources aggregated: Base token-report risk tier and flags, DEX market data, and wallet-audit risk tier, flags, nonce, and native balance. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like wallet_audit, token_report, and liquidity_pool_audit, which each cover only one slice.

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 'Use as one input before a Base trade,' giving clear context for invocation. It does not, however, name a specific alternative tool or state when-not to use it versus composing the sibling tools directly.

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