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

Goes well beyond the annotations: discloses the pricing model (x402 USDC or card key, first 25 free, failed calls free) and explicitly reconciles the readOnlyHint=false flag by explaining each call is charged. It also warns about evidentiary limits (a mint selector does not prove callable minting, missing evidence stays unknown, examples are not live quotes, not a safety guarantee) – exactly the caveats an agent needs before trusting output.

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?

Purpose and the key caveats are front-loaded, and the pricing/commercial details are pushed to the end where they belong. It is dense with caveats and slightly overstuffed, but nearly every clause (free-call policy, non-guarantee, example) earns its place.

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 a single fully-documented parameter and no output schema, the description supplies what is missing: interpretive limits on the returned facts, a usage trigger, pricing/billing behavior, a sample invocation, and a pointer to endpoint details for coverage limits. Nothing an agent needs to call and correctly interpret the tool is absent.

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?

One parameter with 100% schema coverage, so the schema already carries the meaning; per the baseline rule this is a 3. The description contributes only an illustrative example address (0x4200...0006), which adds marginal value and is itself hedged as non-live.

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: heuristic screening of a Base token plus DexScreener market data, enumerating returned facts (owner, paused, proxy, selector checks). It is clear what the tool produces, but it never names or contrasts with the many close siblings (contract_risk, token, price_token, liquidity_pool_audit), so an agent must infer which report to pick.

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 before swapping into an unfamiliar Base token" gives a clear triggering context, and the description scopes itself to Base tokens only. It stops short of exclusion guidance or naming a cheaper/lighter alternative such as price_token or contract_risk when the full report is unnecessary.

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