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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses data freshness ('rewritten every 20 s'), a failure mode with financial consequence ('older than 120 s is refused with a 503 and not charged'), and the billing model ('Costs $0.03 USDC per call (x402)'). These are exactly the traits an agent cannot infer from the schema.

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 the headline ('Everything in one call') and then packs contents, freshness, and cost into three compact clauses with no filler. The dense enumeration is long but each item earns its place by telling the agent what it receives.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers the remaining unknowns an agent needs: freshness window, staleness refusal behavior, and per-call cost. Nothing required to call this correctly is missing.

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 100% and the single 'minutes' parameter is fully documented in the schema (range 1-240, default 60). The description's 'last 1-240 minutes' restates that range without adding syntax or semantics, so the 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?

States a specific verb + resource ('Everything in one call') and enumerates exactly what the snapshot aggregates across both chains: live buyer bursts, pools opened in the last hour, and 24-hour tallies. This clearly distinguishes it from the many single-purpose siblings like rh_bursts_live, sol_bursts_live, and rh_pools_new.

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 phrase 'Everything in one call' implies this is the aggregate alternative to the per-chain burst/pool tools, but the description never explicitly says when to prefer it over the siblings or when not to. With 22 sibling tools, explicit routing guidance would materially help; here it is only implied.

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