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

The description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond the annotations: it discloses the return object format with fields like 'verified' and 'hallucination_risk', mentions the free tier limit of 5/day per IP and unlimited with API key, and notes batch mode capacity of up to 10 claims. This goes well beyond the readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint annotations, giving the agent a clear model of the tool's behavior.

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 front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by a compact return schema and usage guidance. Every sentence adds value: purpose, consequence, pricing, return format, batch mode, and a clear directive. There is no redundant filler or repetition of the tool's name/title.

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 the tool's simplicity (3 optional params, no output schema), the description is fully complete. It covers functionality, return structure, limits, batch mode, and when to invoke it. The agent has enough information to decide whether to use this tool and what to expect in response.

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%: all three parameters (chain, claim, claims) have descriptions in the schema. The description adds a brief mention of batch mode ('up to 10 claims') which aligns with the claims parameter's maxItems, but it doesn't clarify parameter usage beyond what the schema already provides. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the full parameter semantics.

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 identifies the tool as a 'pre-flight reality check' that 'verifies token addresses, prices, chain IDs, and contract existence.' This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from siblings like x711_price_feed (prices only) and x711_onchain_insight (broader analysis). The phrase 'catches hallucinated addresses' ties directly to the tool's name and title.

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?

The description explicitly states 'Always run before any on-chain tx,' providing a clear when-to-use instruction. It positions the tool as a pre-flight check before agent actions. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, though the 'before any on-chain tx' directive is a strong contextual signal.

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