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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose real behavioral facts: it is a paid x402 call at $0.003 USDC per invocation, it is stateful relative to a supplied entry point, and it should be polled repetitively. It omits rate limits, failure behavior, data latency, and whether repeated polls are billed each time, which are material for a paid polling tool.

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?

Purpose and inputs are front-loaded in the opening clause, then output options, then the polling instruction, then price. The long parenthetical rule list is dense but each item carries distinct meaning. Slightly overpacked into one sentence but no filler.

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 no annotations, no output schema, 0% schema coverage, and nested `entry`/`rules` objects, the description covers the verdict space and pricing well but leaves the entry object's required fields and `alreadySoldPct` unexplained. An agent could still call it, but would be guessing at the entry payload format.

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 0% with five parameters including two nested objects, so the description must compensate. It does a good job enumerating the rule triggers (take-profit tiers, stop-loss, trailing stop, time stop, dev sell, sniper dump, sell pressure, holder concentration, liquidity drop, verdict flip), but the shape of the `entry` object, the meaning of `chain`, and the role of `alreadySoldPct` are never explained.

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 capability: take an entry price plus exit rules and return hold / sell X% / exit now with reasons, based on the token's path since entry. That is concrete enough to separate it from pre-entry tools like token_pretrade_check or token_safety. It never names a sibling explicitly, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

'Poll it while you hold' gives a clear usage window (post-entry, ongoing position management) and the framing 'from the token's real path since your entry' reinforces that entry data is required. There is no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative for, say, a pre-entry check, which keeps it below 5.

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