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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context the annotations cannot convey: the price (0.020 USDC), the payment chains (Base and Solana Mainnet), and the exact lock providers inspected.

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 tight sentences with zero waste: the verification scope and providers lead, and the cost/payment detail follows. Nothing is repeated or padded.

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 single-parameter read tool with an output schema present and safety covered by annotations, the description supplies what is needed: scope, providers checked, and cost. Only minor gap is no note on what happens when liquidity is found unlocked, which the output schema presumably handles.

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?

Only one parameter (token_address) and the schema documents it at 100% coverage, including Base ERC-20 vs Solana SPL Mint formats. The description adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema, 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 verb (verifies) and resource (LP token ownership/liquidity lock) with the exact protocols checked (Uncx, Team.Finance, Aerodrome slipstream), plus the outcome it proves ('liquidity cannot be pulled'). It is clearly distinct from siblings like check_honeypot or analyze_liquidity, though it never explicitly names which sibling this replaces.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is a pre-trade safety check on locked liquidity, and the cost line signals it is a paid call. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or comparison against analyze_liquidity, so selection still requires inference from the sibling list.

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