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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the pricing model (0.01 USDC/call), the rate limit (3/day/IP free trial), the payment/auth flow on HTTP 402, and the honest inclusion of 'explicit coverage gaps.' These are exactly the behavioral traits an agent cannot infer from the schema.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with cost/access terms before the capability and then the retry mechanics. Little waste, though the enumeration of outputs makes the middle sentence long.

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 and no annotations, the description still tells the agent what is returned (pool data, price-impact USD, holder concentration, LP burn, coverage gaps) and how to complete payment. Only the response structure and non-402 error behavior remain unspecified, which is a minor gap.

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 67%: token and pair are documented in the schema, while 'payment' has no schema description. The description compensates by explaining the payment parameter's role ('retry with the payment tx hash'), adding meaning beyond the structured fields.

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 ('One-block liquidity audit of a Base token') and enumerates the concrete outputs (Uniswap V3/Aerodrome pools, USD to move price 1/2/5/10%, holder concentration, LP burn evidence, coverage gaps). It is far more specific than the terse sibling names like token_scan or security_scan, though it never explicitly names a sibling to contrast against.

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?

Gives strong operational guidance for the payment flow ('On 402, pay the accepts[] terms then retry with the payment tx hash') and the free-trial limit (3/day/IP), but offers no guidance on when to choose this over token_scan, security_scan, or approval_risk. Usage is implied by the audit framing rather than contrasted with alternatives.

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