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

Annotations already declare read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, so the description only needed incremental context — and it delivers a lot: the x402 cost model (25 free calls/day, then $0.02 USDC per call), the exact verdict vocabulary, and the analytic method (simulating a real holder sale). None of this is recoverable from the structured fields.

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?

Verdict-first and front-loaded, with the check list and cost/input details following. The long enumeration of checked signals is the bulk, but each item conveys a distinct capability; only the input restatement overlaps the schema and could be trimmed.

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?

There is no output schema, yet the description specifies the return shape (one of three verdicts plus 'the exact reasons') and the grading criteria. Combined with the cost and documentation pointers, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly without further inspection.

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% and both parameters are already documented there, including the enum values and default. The description's restatement of token and network adds the phrase 'real money' and clarifies input provenance via find_token/tokens, but this is largely duplicative, so the baseline of 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 action (risk-analysis of a token) and a concrete artifact: it returns SAFE, CAUTION or AVOID with reasons. It enumerates the exact checks performed (liquidity pull simulation, creator record, insider networks, mint/freeze authority, Token-2022 traps), which clearly separates it from siblings like find_token or tokens that only resolve addresses.

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?

Opens with the trigger condition ('Run before buying, accepting or recommending a token') and closes with an explicit exclusion boundary for the network parameter ('Use devnet only for test wallets'). It also points to a fallback doc endpoint, so the agent knows both when to call it and where to go for detail.

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