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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that the tool is paid ($0.005 USDC via x402), lists the exact checks performed, and names the possible verdict categories. It does not describe latency, payment failure behavior, or whether results are cached, but the critical behavioral traits are present.

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 compact and front-loaded: it leads with the paid honeypot check, then the core question, then the specific checks, then the verdict scale. Every clause earns its place, with no filler or repetition.

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 two-parameter query tool with no output schema, the description supplies the essential context: the payment requirement, the checks performed, and the verdict categories. It does not explain the verdict thresholds or response shape, but the core completeness is solid.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters, including the EVM address format and the network enum with its default. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the 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?

States a specific action and resource: a paid honeypot check for an EVM token, with the core question 'can this token be sold, or is it a trap?' It also enumerates the checks performed and the possible verdicts, making its purpose distinct from siblings like scv_scan or scv_wallet_risk.

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 makes clear when to use it: to determine whether a token is sellable or a trap, with on-chain checks for blacklist, taxes, mint/pause, and proxy behavior. It does not explicitly compare against alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is strong enough for an agent to infer.

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