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

Annotations cover safety (readOnlyHint) and world scope, and the description adds substantial behavior beyond them: the data source, the 50-transaction page limit and its consequence, and the paid-call model ($0.003 USDC via x402, failed calls not charged). These are exactly the operational facts an agent needs before invoking.

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?

Four dense sentences, each carrying distinct information (scope, limits, exclusions, price), front-loaded with the core purpose. The pricing clause is long but materially relevant to invocation decisions rather than filler.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. Given a single-parameter, read-only tool, the description covers scope, pagination limits, exclusions, and billing—everything an agent needs to call it correctly and understand its limits.

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?

One parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents the 0x address format. The description adds only the contextual framing that the address identifies a deployer wallet, which is mild but useful; no additional parameter detail is needed.

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+resource: contracts created by a deployer wallet on Ethereum, with the exact fields returned (creation hash, time, new contract address) and the data source (Blockscout public API). It also explicitly rules out related-but-different analyses (rug-pull, abandoned-pool, liquidity history), separating it from siblings like liquidity_lock_inspector and token_composite_safety_score.

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 a clear context of use plus explicit exclusions ('No rug-pull or abandoned-pool judgement: liquidity history is not included') and a coverage caveat ('older launches are missing'). It stops short of naming a specific alternative tool to use when the deployer history is insufficient, so it is clear but not fully routing.

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