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

The description discloses that each call costs $0.01 and requires payment via x402 or subscriber API key. It also states the behavior for unscanned addresses (returns found:false) and includes a disclaimer that the data is educational, not financial advice. While it does not explicitly state whether the tool modifies anything, the nature of a verification tool and the absence of annotations imply it is read-only.

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 lengthy but begins with the core purpose and then details output fields and payment instructions. It is structured with periods and lists, but includes redundant pricing and payment details that could be condensed. However, the main functionality is front-loaded and the additional information is relevant.

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?

The description explains the output fields (score, confidence, action, flags, narrative tags) and the 'found:false' case. It also covers payment methods and a disclaimer. It does not mention error handling for invalid mints or rate limits, but for a simple verification tool with one input, it is fairly 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?

The only parameter, 'mint', is described as a Solana mint address in the tool description, clarifying its meaning despite lacking a schema description. The description provides sufficient context to understand what value to pass.

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 that this tool provides a token authenticity verdict for a Solana mint, including a realness score, confidence, recommended action, rug-risk flags, psyop/pump detection, and narrative tags. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'get_' tools by focusing on verification rather than data retrieval.

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 that this tool should be used when you need to verify the authenticity of a Solana token, as it returns a verdict and associated flags. It also notes that if the address has never been scanned, it returns found:false, which suggests it might not initiate new scans. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternative tools or state when not to use it, but given the distinct purpose, it is clear enough.

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