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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds real value by specifying the output shape (evidence attached to each fraud flag) and explicitly disclosing that it reports 'what was not checked' – a limitation caveat agents rarely get. It doesn't mention latency, coverage caveats per chain, or freshness of the data, keeping it below 5.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the purpose and then lists outputs in decreasing order of importance, ending on the caveat. No filler, no restatement of the title.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining returns and does so field-by-field, including the crucial 'not checked' disclosure. It could go one step further by indicating the risk-score scale or how to interpret thresholds before declaring a token safe, which keeps it at 4.

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% and the schema itself documents the 56-hex policy-id-plus-asset-name format and points to `search` / `list_tokens` as sources. The description contributes nothing about the `unit` parameter beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('evidence-based risk check of one token') and enumerates the exact outputs: risk score/level, fraud flags with evidence, mint policy lock, liquidity depth and LP lock/burn, holder concentration. This clearly separates it from siblings like get_token, get_token_liquidity, and get_token_distribution, which return raw data rather than an aggregated safety verdict.

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?

'Use it before calling a token safe' gives a concrete activation condition tied to a real decision. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g. use get_token_liquidity when you only need depth) or stating when not to use it, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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