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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does it well. It discloses the cost ($0.01 USDC), the failure mode before payment when GOPLUS_ACCESS_TOKEN is missing, the separation of provider findings from internal scoring, and the explicit non-guarantee of safety. This is exemplary behavioral disclosure for a mutated/paid workflow.

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?

Four sentences, each earning its place: cost, core behavior, prerequisite, and caveat. The paid nature is front-loaded, and no words are wasted. It is concise while still covering essential operational details.

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?

Despite having only 2 parameters and an output schema, the description covers cost, authentication requirement, error behavior, output segregation, and limitations. Nothing critical for an agent to invoke this tool correctly is missing, and the output schema handles return-value documentation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it does not explicitly explain 'chain' or 'token_address'. It only mentions 'supported EVM tokens' generically. The schema's enum and regex provide format hints, but the description adds little semantic meaning about which parameter is which or how they relate to the audit.

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 states a specific action ('Normalizes GoPlus token-security flags and public EVM RPC metadata') and a clear resource ('supported EVM tokens'). The paid audit scope is front-loaded, and the tool name aligns with the described behavior, distinguishing it from sibling tools like check_wallet or analyze_whale_activity.

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 usage context: when you need a security audit of an EVM token, with a prerequisite (GOPLUS_ACCESS_TOKEN) and a limitation ('Does not trade or guarantee token safety'). It does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance, so it stops at implied usage rather than explicit routing.

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