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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, non-destructive, and open-world; the description adds a meaningful cost detail: $0.005 USDC via x402. This cost is not inferable from the schema or annotations and helps the agent account for a real external side effect.

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 short sentences carry the core purpose, timing context, and cost with no filler. The main verb and object are front-loaded, making the tool's behavior immediately scannable.

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 one-parameter read-only tool, the description, schema, and annotations together cover purpose, timing, address format, safety, and cost. It does not explicitly state the return format, but "get nonce" makes the expected response self-evident and the omission is minor.

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%: the address parameter is already fully documented with its format and network. The description's "Base wallet" phrasing loosely maps to that parameter but adds no new semantic detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 uses a specific verb and resource ("Get the current transaction nonce for a Base wallet"), which uniquely identifies the operation and distinguishes it from sibling tools such as base_transaction and base_wallet_balance. The phrase "before broadcasting a transaction" reinforces why the nonce is needed.

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 clearly states the tool is used "before broadcasting a transaction," giving the agent a concrete context for when to invoke it. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but no sibling tool directly overlaps with fetching a nonce.

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