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

Annotations already mark readOnly/openWorld/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds value beyond them: it specifies the JSON return shape, the 10 weighted-unit cost, metering on the user's key, and the API-key requirement. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Three sentences pack definition, usage, exclusions, output, cost, and auth without padding. The core action is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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 low-complexity 2-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool returns, when to use it, constraints, cost, and key requirement. Nothing needed to invoke 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains chain slug and address. The description adds context like 'one EVM chain' and 'data-capable upstream' but does not materially extend parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, matching the baseline.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Recent asset transfers ... of an address' on one EVM chain. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from get_balances and get_tx_status, so an agent can tell it apart without opening schemas.

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 a clear when-to-use framing ('what moved in or out of this address lately'), explicit exclusions ('Not for current balances', 'one transaction's state', 'Solana'), and names the alternatives (get_balances, get_tx_status). This routes an agent to the correct tool unambiguously.

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