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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses the heuristic nature ('not a safety guarantee'), the billing model ($0.01/call, first 25 free, failed calls free), and warns that repeats are not free — behavior an agent cannot derive from annotations. Nothing contradicts the declared readOnlyHint.

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 verdict and red-flag taxonomy are front-loaded, which is the right ordering. It is dense but nearly every clause carries information; the only waste is mild repetition of 'before swapping into a Base token,' stated both early and late.

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 no output schema, the description carries the full burden and does so: it specifies the verdict tiers, enumerates the red-flag categories, and names the market fields returned (price, liquidity, volume, FDV). An agent knows both what it gets and how much it costs before calling.

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% for the single address parameter, and the description reinforces that the address must be a Base token contract with a worked example (0x4200...0006). It adds small value over the schema's 'Token contract address on Base (0x...)' but nothing about address normalization or non-token addresses.

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 a specific verb and resource — 'Check a Base token before you swap into it' — and enumerates the exact output (risk verdict plus named red flags and live DexScreener metrics). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like token_info, contract_risk, or price_token, which each cover only part of the picture.

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 states the trigger condition explicitly ('Use before swapping into an unfamiliar Base token') and supplies a concrete example address. It doesn't name which sibling to use instead for plain metadata or price-only lookups, so an agent must infer the boundary against token_info/price_token, keeping it short of a 5.

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