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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses a key limitation ('Per pool, not per order: victim trade sizes are not stored'), the exact chain coverage, and a per-call price of 1 cent. It omits auth/permission requirements and any rate-limit detail, so it falls short of a 5.

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, then packs constraints into one dense block with zero filler. However, it enumerates many return fields that the existing output schema already covers, adding length the structured data makes partially redundant.

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?

Given a 3-param tool with an output schema, an agent has everything it needs: what is checked, the required pool format, window bounds, chain coverage, cost, and the per-pool granularity caveat. Nothing material to correct invocation 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%, so the description must compensate, and it does: pool (contract address or 32-byte Uniswap v4 / PancakeSwap Infinity pool id), window (minutes, default 1440, max 10080), and the four allowed chains. Every parameter gains meaning the raw schema lacks.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource ('Pre-trade MEV check of one pool on one chain') and scopes it to a single pool/chain, which separates it from pool-agnostic siblings like mev_intel or mev_pressure. It never names an alternative explicitly, so it stops short of full 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?

'Pre-trade' implies the context of use, and the description supplies defaults, max window, supported chains and price. It gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and never points to a competing MEV sibling for a different need.

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