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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint), the description discloses the pricing model ($0.01/call, first 25 free, failed calls free), that repeated calls are charged, what the tool does not do (buy/sell recommendations, calibrated confidence, holder concentration), and the limitation of account nonce. This provides substantial behavioral context for a paid, composable read tool.

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 front-loaded with the composition and return behavior, then moves to limitations and pricing. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, though 'Reads or computes only and changes nothing' partially repeats the readOnlyHint annotation, and the pricing sentence is slightly verbose. No sentence is wasted, but minor tightening is possible.

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 needs to convey what is returned, and it does: a combination of risk tiers, flags, market data, nonce, and balance. It also covers key limitations and cost. It stops short of describing the output structure (e.g., field names or grouping), which would be helpful, but an agent can still understand what to expect from the call.

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%: the input schema already documents both 'token' and 'wallet' as 0x-prefixed 20-byte hex addresses on Base. The description mentions 'Base token-report' and 'wallet-audit' but adds no new parameter-level semantics. With the schema doing full documentation, a baseline of 3 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 specifies exactly what the tool combines: Base token-report risk tier and flags, DEX market data, and wallet-audit risk tier, flags, nonce, and balance. It clearly states it returns these indicators separately and does not generate recommendations. However, it does not explicitly say how it differs from calling the sibling tools token_report and wallet_audit individually, so sibling differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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 gives a clear usage context: 'Use as one input before a Base trade.' It also clarifies that it is not a standalone decision-maker. Yet it does not name explicit alternatives (e.g., 'use token_report for token-only risk') or state when not to use it, so the guidance is contextual but not exhaustive.

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