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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, and the description adds real context beyond them: a 10-calls-per-day free tier, and the specific degradation behavior past that limit (returns the x402 pay-per-call endpoint and its price rather than failing). It also discloses the composite nature of the call and the verdict taxonomy, which an agent needs in order to interpret results.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and the rate-limit caveat is placed last where a secondary operational detail belongs. The first sentence is dense with a parenthetical list, but every clause carries decision-relevant information, so little trimming is warranted.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns, and it does so reasonably: verdict plus reasons plus the underlying metric categories. Rate limiting and fallback behavior are covered. It does not state failure modes for unsupported chains or invalid/non-token addresses, which is the main remaining gap for a one-required-parameter tool.

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% with only two parameters, so the schema already documents the address pattern and the chain enum. The description's only parameter-adjacent signal is 'current gas', which hints that chain affects pricing data, but it adds no syntax or format meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 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 verb and resource ('Check a token before you buy it') and enumerates exactly what the call bundles: holder concentration, permissions, liquidity metrics, AI risk assessment with market data, and gas. It produces a 'proceed/caution/avoid verdict with reasons', which is concrete enough to separate it from siblings like token_risk_metrics or gas_oracle that cover only one slice.

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 phrase 'before you buy it' gives a clear triggering context, and 'Cheaper than calling the three services separately' implicitly positions it against the component tools. It stops short of explicitly naming when-not to use it (e.g. for tokens already held, or for non-EVM chains covered by solana_token_risk_scan), so no exclusion guidance is present.

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