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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that results are pre-computed for top tokens and live-computed for others, which implies possible latency differences, and it clearly enumerates what the risk assessment includes. It does not mention output format or error behavior, but the operation is inherently read-only and low-risk.

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 description is two sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the tool's purpose and metric list, and the second adds a meaningful performance/availability distinction. Every phrase contributes information an agent needs.

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?

The metric list gives a strong sense of what the agent will receive, but there is no output schema and the description does not explain the return structure, weighting methodology, or failure cases such as unsupported tokens. It is adequate for invoking the tool correctly but leaves some uncertainty about the response shape.

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 both 'address' and 'chain' are already well documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema fully handles parameter semantics.

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 clearly states the tool computes quantitative risk metrics for ERC-20 tokens and enumerates the specific dimensions: holder concentration, contract permissions, liquidity depth, deployer history, and a composite risk score. This is specific enough to distinguish it from broad tools like token_research or token_intel and from the Solana-specific sibling.

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 description gives useful context such as 'for any ERC-20 token' and distinguishes pre-computed vs live-computed behavior, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over related siblings like token_intel or token_research. Usage is implied rather than explicitly guided.

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