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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/openWorld annotations: discloses the data source (Blockscout), that unverified contracts are reported rather than guessed, the epistemic caveat that a hit is not proof, and the exact pricing model ($0.002 USDC via x402, failed calls free). The cost/payment-auth disclosure is especially valuable for an agent deciding to call.

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?

Front-loads what it does, then layers scope, exclusions, caveat and price in an order that mirrors the agent's decision process. Every clause (source, verified-only, no-guess, not-proof, pricing) carries distinct information with no waste.

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?

An output schema exists, so return format is covered elsewhere; the description fully supplies scope, limitations, epistemic caveat and payment terms. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing for a one-param read 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% and the single 'address' param is fully documented in the schema. The description reinforces the Ethereum/verified constraint but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the structured field, so the baseline 3 is correct.

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 narrow resource: static search of a VERIFIED contract's Solidity source for max-wallet, max-transaction and cooldown rules. The scope is precise enough to distinguish it from broad safety scorers, but it names no sibling (e.g., honeypot_trap_detector or token_composite_safety_score) directly.

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 clear when-not conditions: unverified contracts, bytecode-only and non-Ethereum chains are out of scope, and hits are 'a clue, not proof of a trap.' It stops short of naming which sibling to use instead for bytecode or cross-chain cases.

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