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

Annotations already mark it read-only/non-destructive, and the description adds real context beyond them: a DexScreener-primary/Base-fallback source with source and retrieval time in the result, null for missing fields, 404 for unknown pairs, and an explicit cost model (first 25 free, failed calls free, repeats charged) that explains the non-idempotent hint. The scope boundary (market data only, no risk assessment) prevents over-trusting the 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?

The action and its output are front-loaded, followed by scope boundary, alternative routing, example and pricing. It is information-dense rather than padded, though the pricing/commercial clauses make it longer than a pure capability description needs to be.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the full burden and does so: it enumerates the returned fields, source/provenance, null and 404 behavior, and the scope limit. Nothing an agent needs in order to call this correctly or interpret its result is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter's format (0x-prefixed 20-byte hex) is fully documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description restates 'give a pair address' and adds a concrete example value, which is mildly helpful but contributes no new semantics.

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 (check/audit) and a tightly scoped resource (a Base DEX pair's liquidity, volume, trades, age), and lists exactly what comes back. It explicitly bounds itself ('Market data only, no risk assessment') and names token_report as the sibling for token red flags, so an agent can separate it from token_report, price_token and wallet tools without opening a schema.

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 to confirm a pair is real and deep enough before trading' gives a concrete trigger, and 'token red flags: token_report' names the alternative with the condition that selects it. The 'no risk assessment' clause tells the agent when this tool is not enough.

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