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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one useful trait beyond them: the profile is 'stored' (cached) rather than a live quote, which separates it from the quote siblings. It says nothing about auth needs, freshness, or response shape, so it stays at the baseline-plus level.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, correctly prioritizing the resource and its payload before the route. It is efficient, though arguably too terse given the undocumented parameters.

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?

For a GET tool with no output schema and 0% schema description coverage, the description should at least characterize the returned market/risk fields or the address format. It identifies the endpoint but leaves both the parameter formats and the response contents unstated; adequate but with clear gaps.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden, and the embedded route does map the two required params to chain and address, adding meaning about what address refers to. However, it gives no format guidance (e.g. checksummed hex, chain slug conventions) despite the address being minLength 32, so the compensation is only partial.

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 names a specific resource ('one listed token') and its payload ('detailed stored market and risk profile'), and the route (GET /api/token/:chain/:address) pins it to a single-token lookup. It implicitly contrasts with the plural sibling memeswap_tokens, but never states the verb 'retrieve/fetch' or explicitly distinguishes itself from memeswap_quote, so it falls short of 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite guidance. Nothing tells the agent how this differs from memeswap_tokens, memeswap_quote, or memeswap_xquote, leaving the routing decision to inference.

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