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

Beyond the safe read-only annotations, the description discloses the output format (A–F grade), the assessed dimensions, that each factor is source-attributed, and the explicit cost in USDC via x402. This gives an agent useful behavioral context such as expected output shape and pricing without contradicting the annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded: it states the primary output immediately, then adds detail on risk factors and pricing. The two sentences are information-dense without redundancy, though the pricing detail could be considered secondary to the tool's purpose.

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?

Given the single parameter, high schema coverage, rich annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential decision-making context: what is assessed, in what format, and at what cost. Minor omissions like turnaround time or payment mechanics are not critical given the structured metadata.

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?

The schema already fully documents the only parameter, target, including its accepted forms (Arc address or DefiLlama slug). The description's mention of tokens and protocols reinforces this but does not add substantially new parameter-level meaning. Baseline of 3 applies due to high schema coverage.

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 clearly identifies a specific resource and outcome: a graded A–F risk report for a token on Arc or a DeFi protocol. It enumerates the risk dimensions analyzed, which makes the tool's purpose concrete. It is not phrased with an explicit action verb, but it is unambiguous and distinguishable from the sibling tools.

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?

The description implies when to use the tool: whenever a user needs a risk rating for an Arc token or DeFi protocol. It does not explicitly compare itself to sibling tools or state when not to use it, but the scope is clear enough for an agent to infer appropriate usage.

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