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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it discloses read-only behavior ('never signs or sends'), pricing, no account/API key requirement, typical response time, and the concrete data sources. This goes well beyond minimal disclosure.

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 information-dense but every sentence earns its place: purpose, trigger, output details, practical benefits, pricing, safety, and parameter format. The parameter explanation is cleanly separated at the end.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is complete: it tells the agent when to invoke it, what input is required, what output to expect, and important behavioral constraints. Nothing critical 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 0%, but the description compensates fully by explaining that 'mint' is an SPL token mint address and providing a concrete example address. For a one-parameter tool, this is sufficient and clear.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it delivers a go/no-go risk verdict on a Solana SPL token. It specifies the output (0–100 risk score, reasons, slippage curve) and its use case, which distinguishes it from siblings like inspect_wallet or simulate_transaction.

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?

It gives an explicit trigger: 'Use when you are about to buy, swap, or approve an unfamiliar mint.' It also mentions what it replaces (multiple RPC round-trips and a quote sweep), providing clear context, though it does not explicitly compare to sibling tools or state when not to use it.

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