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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds beyond that by stating 'Does not trade' and 'not financial advice,' and reveals a 0.01 USDC payment requirement via a URL. These are useful behavioral and cost details that do not contradict the annotations.

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 three sentences: purpose, safety caveat, and payment instruction. The function is front-loaded and there is no filler, but the URL and payment sentence adds operational detail that could be considered slightly extraneous to the core description.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values are documented externally. The description covers data sources, payment, and non-trading behavior, which is adequate for a read-only snapshot tool. It could mention required token_address or chain behavior, but those are handled by the schema, so no major gaps remain.

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 does not elaborate on the individual parameters. The schema already covers token_address and market_data with descriptions and chain via an enum, giving 67% coverage. The description adds no extra meaning for parameters, so a baseline score is appropriate.

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 opens with 'Return a research-only token risk snapshot from public liquidity, volume, pair-age, volatility, and data availability,' which is a specific verb+resource statement and clearly lists the data inputs. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like compare_market_tool_options and quote_agent_route by focusing on a risk snapshot rather than market comparison or quoting.

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 provides clear when-not context ('Does not trade and is not financial advice') and labels the tool as 'research-only,' which implies appropriate use cases. It also discloses a payment prerequisite ('Buy and run for 0.01 USDC on Base'), but it does not name alternatives or explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings.

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