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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly: cost ($0.02 USDC via x402), 404-not-charged for tokens with no call, 503-not-charged for stale data, 30s rewrite cadence, 180s freshness limit, and an explicit privacy note that no chat names/callers/message text are returned. This is exactly the operational context an agent needs before calling.

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-loaded with the core purpose, but delivered as one very long colon-and-semicolon run-on that crams definitions, error codes, pricing, and disclaimers into a single sentence. The content is dense and largely earns its place, yet the lack of any structural break makes it harder to scan than necessary.

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?

Behaviorally complete: freshness, pricing, error semantics, and privacy are all covered, and the output schema handles return structure. Some return-field definitions (run60, flags thresholds) are restated in the description despite the output schema, which is slight redundancy but not a gap. Nearly everything an agent needs to call this correctly is present.

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% for the single 'addr' parameter, which already documents the 0x+40-hex format, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no syntax or format detail for the argument beyond restating 'on-chain addresses'. 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 names a specific dataset and scope: pre-call token activity over the hour before a Telegram call, covering every call seen in the last 48h, with named output fields (run60, flags, pre-post buyer wallets). It is easy to tell apart from rh_token_verdict or rh_token_rugcheck by content, though it never explicitly names those siblings. Clear and specific, but no direct sibling differentiation.

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?

Usage is strongly implied by the content ('what a token did in the hour before a call'), and the 48h window and flag definitions give context for when the result is meaningful. But there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not, no named alternative for pre-call vs post-call analysis, and no stated prerequisite beyond the address. Implied usage only.

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