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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, but the description adds material context the annotations cannot: $0.01 USDC per call over x402, failed calls are free, and the two-step quote-then-pay flow via the `payment` parameter. It stops short of saying whether results are cached or how stale the on-chain reads can be, so not a full 5.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and the labeled When/Use-instead/Parameters/Returns blocks scan well. However 'Facts, not advice' appears twice and the Returns summary largely repeats the opening sentence's output list, which is avoidable duplication.

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 read-only, five-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: what comes back, the payment handshake, chain defaults, and the one required field. Nothing material is left to inference.

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 baseline is 3; the description goes slightly beyond by grouping the parameters into a usage narrative (amount_usd drives price impact against pool depth, wallet drives holdings display) and reminding that token is required. Much of that overlaps the schema text, which caps it at 4.

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 and resource ('pre-trade check of a token on Base, Ethereum or Solana') and enumerates the concrete outputs: price, liquidity, chain warnings, price impact, holdings, web results. It also names the sibling token_check as the non-trading alternative, so the agent can separate the two without opening either schema.

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?

Explicit 'When to use' line ties it to the moment right before a trade with a sizing question, and an explicit 'Use instead: token_check when you aren't trading yet' exclusion. Both the positive and negative conditions are stated.

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