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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the internal signals (on-chain velocity, proven-winner wallet buys, agent attention) and the verdict scale. It doesn't explicitly state whether the operation is read-only or mention rate limits/errors, but for a check tool the lack of side-effect disclosure is acceptable. The 'NFA' disclaimer adds context.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence sets context and outcome, the second lists the data sources, and the third references a partner tool. Every sentence earns its place, with no filler. 'NFA' is a meaningful caveat in crypto contexts.

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 tool with one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers all essential aspects: input, output (verdict categories), reasoning, and the specific signals examined. It even names a complementary tool for a fuller analysis. Enough to invoke correctly without missing critical info.

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 coverage is 100% with a single 'mint' parameter described as 'Token mint address to check'. The description adds no further parameter details beyond restating the mint input, so it meets the baseline of 3 without adding extra semantic value beyond the schema.

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 verb ('check'), the resource (a token mint), and the output (a verdict with reasoning). It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming its specific signals (on-chain velocity, proven-winner wallet buys, agent attention) and explicitly says it 'Pairs with due_diligence (structural safety)', which differentiates it from that sibling.

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 when to use it ('Before you ape') and that it targets 'that specific token'. It also names a complementary/alternative tool, due_diligence, for structural safety, giving clear usage guidance and excluding general scans or multi-token contexts.

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