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

Annotations declare read-only/non-destructive, and the description adds meaningful context beyond them: the pricing model ($0.002 USDC per call), the x402 payment rails (Base, Solana, Polygon, Arbitrum), and that x402 MCP clients pay automatically. It also discloses the tool's warning-signal outputs, which is useful behavioral context for a pay-per-call read tool.

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 purpose and outputs, then usage, then pricing, then a free sample. Sentences are dense but each carries distinct information; the payment and sample sentences are slightly tangential to the core check but justified for an x402 tool.

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 carries the full burden of describing return values and does so exhaustively (balances, USD value, timestamps, bandwidth/energy, warning signals). For a read-only, single-param tool, nothing an agent needs to call it 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 coverage is 100% and the single 'address' param is fully documented ('Tron address starting with T'). The description contributes only a concrete example input value, adding no format, validation, or edge-case semantics beyond the schema, 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 (Tron address check) and enumerates exactly what it returns: TRX/staked TRX, USDT/USDC balances, USD value, creation/activity times, bandwidth/energy, and warning signals. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like btc_address, evm_balance, or wallet_portfolio which operate on different chains or aggregate portfolios.

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 before sending USDT on Tron or to check a counterparty' and explains that fresh/never-activated addresses are scam signals, giving a concrete trigger. It stops short of naming an alternative sibling to use instead in adjacent cases, so it lacks explicit when-not guidance.

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