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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of revealing behavior. It explains the scan produces a ranked list with reasoning and verdicts, but does not explicitly state it is read-only, nor discuss rate limits, data freshness, or potential side effects. The term 'scan' hints at safety, but the lack of explicit disclosure limits transparency.

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 highly concise and front-loaded: it opens with the purpose ('full memecoin pre-ape scan in one call'), details the three signals, and explains the output and verdicts in two sentences plus 'NFA'. Every sentence adds value and there is no redundant content.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description provides a solid overview of return values: a ranked list with per-token reasoning and HIGH_CONFLUENCE/MODERATE/SINGLE_SIGNAL verdicts. It lacks an explicit struct of each token entry, but covers the core output and differentiates from sibling tools, making it reasonably complete.

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 documents the three parameters (limit, min_liquidity_usd, max_token_age_hours). The tool description adds no parameter-specific information, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema fully covers 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 states what the tool does: it performs a 'full memecoin pre-ape scan' combining three specific signals (on-chain velocity, smart-money buys, agent attention) into a ranked list with verdicts. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like runner_scan or smart_money_flow, which focus on individual signals.

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 this tool: for a comprehensive pre-ape scan, emphasizing 'full' and 'one call' as an alternative to running multiple individual scans. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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