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

Annotations only declare readOnly and openWorld; the description adds real substance: the per-token payload fields (price, liquidity, volume, change, age, risk badge, swapUrl), the embedded `display` markdown that must be surfaced, and the warning that this is an extremely risky asset class. No failure modes, rate limits, or empty-result behavior are described, and with no output schema it must carry that burden alone.

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 core definition is front-loaded in the first sentence, with risk obligations and output notes following in order of importance. The trailing tool-list of seven playbook workflow names is somewhat catalog-like filler, but it is short and aids routing.

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 six-parameter, zero-required scan tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys what comes back (fields, risk badge, swapUrl, display markdown) and the safety obligations around it. Pagination/truncation and behavior on empty results are the remaining gaps.

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 83%, above the high-coverage threshold, so the schema already documents chain, window, maxAgeHours, minVolumeUsd and minLiquidityUsd. The description only reinforces `window` and the new/trending-pair scoping; it adds no syntax or default behavior beyond the schema (e.g., what 'all' expands to is left to the schema).

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 resource and metric: tokens with the biggest absolute price change over a window, scoped to new and trending pairs. This implicitly separates it from scan_new_tokens and scan_trending, though it never names those siblings to confirm the distinction.

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?

Gives concrete downstream obligations (always show risk level, flags and disclaimer; suggest token_risk before swapping; show the `display` markdown) and points to swapchan_playbook workflows for combination. It lacks an explicit 'use scan_trending instead when…' exclusion relative to the closest siblings.

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