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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the tool returns signals (risky selectors, owner status, transfer activity) and that these are investigative leads, not definitive verdicts. It also mentions pricing (0.05 USDC), which is a useful operational detail. However, it doesn't disclose side effects, whether payment is required upfront, or what happens if the token is invalid.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. The first sentence states what the tool does, the second clarifies its interpretive nature, and the third gives pricing. Every sentence earns its place, though the pricing could be considered secondary.

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 has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the output looks like, how to interpret the signals, or what the parameters mean. The pricing and 'not a verdict' caveat help, but an agent would still be uncertain about how to invoke it correctly, especially regarding payment_signature and blocks.

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 for undocumented parameters. The description mentions 'token contract' and 'Price 0.05 USDC' which hints at the token and payment_signature parameters, but it doesn't explain chain, blocks, or payment_signature semantics. The enum for chain is in the schema, but the description adds no meaning for the other parameters.

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 purpose: providing due-diligence signals for a token contract, including risky selectors, owner/renounced status, and transfer activity. It distinguishes itself from a verdict by saying 'Signals to investigate, not a verdict.' However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like token_report or pool_risk, though the specific mention of contract-level signals helps.

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: when investigating a token contract's due-diligence signals. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like token_report or pool_risk. The phrase 'Signals to investigate, not a verdict' gives some guidance on interpretation but not on tool selection.

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