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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world), so the description is free to add the value it does: the exact verdict taxonomy, the per-token fields returned, the presence of a summary count, the 10-item cap, and the pricing/payment mechanism (USDC on Base via x402). That payment and cost information is behavior an agent cannot get from annotations. It does not discuss partial-failure behavior when some tokens in the batch are unresolvable, which is the main remaining gap.

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 verdict taxonomy and the batching constraint are front-loaded, and the sibling comparison plus price follow in a logical order. The final clause is run together without punctuation ("trading loops Price: $0.02 per call"), which slightly harms parseability but does not waste words.

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 return-value burden and does so: per-token verdict enum, sourced flags, taxes, liquidity, and a summary count are all named. Combined with the cost and payment path, an agent has everything needed to decide to call it and to interpret the result.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter is fully documented, so the baseline is 3. The description earns above baseline by clarifying that EVM and Solana tokens can be mixed in one call and that the chain is auto-detected, which reinforces the schema's "chain auto" note with an explicit mixed-batch guarantee.

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 names a specific verb and resource (batch token-check verdicts, up to 10 per call), enumerates the output categories (OK/CAUTION/AVOID/UNKNOWN with flags, taxes, liquidity), and explicitly positions itself against the sibling token-check as the batched equivalent. An agent can distinguish it from token-check and token-check-free without opening any 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?

It states the intended consumer contexts ("for scanners and trading loops") and implicitly routes single-token work to token-check by framing this as the batch/multi-token path at a fifth of the per-token price. It stops short of an explicit "use token-check instead when..." exclusion, but the batching condition is clear enough to select correctly.

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