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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses that the call is paid ($0.005 USDC via x402) and what comes back. It does not state whether the call is read-only/no side effects, nor rate limits or failure behavior, so it stops short of fully covering the mutation/safety dimension.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then price, then return shape. Every clause carries information an agent needs to decide and call.

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 3-param, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description covers purpose, cost/payment path, and return fields, which is most of what an agent needs; only safety profile (read-only vs state-changing) and error/limit behavior are unstated.

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% (address format, network enum and default, verify default), so the schema already does the parameter work. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond naming the network-agnostic scope, so baseline 3 applies.

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: a rug-pull risk scan of an EVM contract, and enumerates the returned signals (score 0-100, verdict, mint/pause/blacklist/tax/proxy/ownership flags). This clearly separates it from siblings like scv_honeypot and 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 phrase 'rug-pull risk scan of an EVM contract' implies usage, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or routing to scv_honeypot / scv_wallet_risk / scv_approvals. The agent must infer the boundary between this and its siblings from names alone.

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