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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently states that the tool uses live DEX data, produces a heuristic 0-100 risk score, and costs $0.01 USDC via x402. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond a simple 'screens tokens' statement, though it omits failure modes or invalid-address behavior.

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 entire description is one compact sentence that front-loads the core purpose, then lists key inputs and output, and ends with the payment detail. Every clause earns its place with no redundancy.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it screens, what data it uses, what score it produces, and that it costs money. It does not explicitly state the risk-score direction (higher = riskier), but 'risk score' makes that reasonably inferable.

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 description coverage is 100% and the only parameter, address, is already described as 'EVM token contract address 0x...'. The tool description adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond restating 'EVM token', so the schema carries the weight.

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 identifies the tool's function: EVM token rug-pull risk screening. It specifies the resource (EVM token), the inputs (liquidity, volume, pair age), and the output (0-100 heuristic risk score), which distinguishes it from the sibling market analysis and price tools.

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 when to use the tool: when an EVM token needs rug-pull risk screening. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare it to alternatives like get_market_analysis or fact_check, leaving usage guidance to inference.

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