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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses two traits an agent could not infer: the call is free/no-payment and the security data is only partial. It does not say what 'partial' covers, whether results are cached or rate-limited, or what happens for an unknown/invalid token.

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 compact sentence with the usage trigger front-loaded and no filler. It reads as a sentence fragment rather than a full statement of purpose, but every clause adds information.

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 simple two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the data categories returned, which is the essential piece. It omits chain-specific behavior and the shape/limits of the response, so an agent still has gaps before calling it confidently.

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 description never references either parameter. With only 50% schema coverage, the address param is documented only by the schema's own sentence and the chain enum has no prose at all; nothing explains what chains are supported or what the default 'base' implies for result comparability.

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 names the resource (any token) and the specific data returned: DEX market pool, price, and partial security flags. The qualifiers 'basic' and 'partial' implicitly separate it from deeper siblings like aegis_token_audit and aegis_priority_audit, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

It opens with an explicit 'USE WHEN' condition, giving a clear trigger context. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it or routing to a named alternative (e.g. the full audit tool) when 'partial security flags' is insufficient.

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