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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It details the factors considered (sell pressure, buy-rate deceleration, volume fade, etc.), states that rug triggers override all else, and includes a disclaimer (NFA). It does not mention rate limits or authorization requirements, but the tool is clearly read-only and the inputs/outputs are described. This is good transparency for a tool without 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?

The description is well-structured and concise, opening with the core purpose and then listing the factors considered and the override conditions. Every sentence contributes value, with no redundancy or filler. The disclaimer 'NFA' is a meaningful qualifier. It is appropriately sized for the complexity of the 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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, inputs, outputs (EXIT/DERISK/HOLD, score, reasoning), key factors, and overrides. It does not detail the exact scale of the 0-1 score or provide interpretation of the labels, but given the absence of an output schema, this is acceptable. The description is sufficient for an agent to know when and how to call the tool, though a bit more on output interpretation could push it to a 5.

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?

The input schema already provides clear descriptions for both parameters (mint and entry_price_usd), and the schema coverage is 100%. The description does not add additional semantic information beyond what the schema offers. For example, it mentions 'pass a mint' but doesn't clarify formats or constraints beyond the schema. Since the schema is complete, a score of 3 is appropriate per the rubric.

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 the tool's function: it provides a sell-side verdict for a token, returning EXIT/DERISK/HOLD with a 0-1 score and reasoning. It specifies the input (mint) and distinguishes itself from potential siblings like consensus_signal by focusing on exit decisions. The verb 'get' and the resource 'verdict for a token you hold' are specific and unambiguous.

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 implies when to use it: when you hold a token and need a sell-side verdict. It mentions it works on any token age, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or suggest alternatives. There is no direct comparison to sibling tools, but the context is clear enough to infer appropriate usage.

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