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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/openWorld annotations by disclosing billing behavior ($0.003 USDC per successful call via x402 on Base, Solana or Arc; failed calls not charged), the fixed-rule nature of the verdict ('rules are fixed and listed in the answer'), and chain coverage limits. Cost and failure semantics are exactly the behavioral facts an agent needs before calling a paid endpoint.

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 the verdict output, then sources, then commercial terms — a sensible order. Dense but each sentence carries distinct information; the final sentence is heavily clause-packed and could be split, but nothing is redundant.

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 2-parameter read-only tool with a declared output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: what verdicts exist, where the data comes from, which chains work, what it costs, and that failures are free. Return-value explanation is unnecessary given the output schema is present.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds value by enumerating the five supported chains in prose and explicitly excluding Solana, which the schema's 'base, ethereum, bsc, arbitrum or polygon' string does not otherwise flag as a hard boundary. No added detail on address format, but the schema already fully documents it.

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 precise verb+resource+output shape: a PASS/CAUTION/AVOID verdict for an EVM token, naming the exact data sources (GoPlus token security, DexScreener) and the chains. It separates itself from generic siblings like token_composite_safety_score by promising a fixed-rule verdict rather than a numeric score, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 context is implied (quick triage of an EVM token's safety) and one exclusion is stated clearly ('Solana is not covered'), plus a disclaimer that it is not financial advice. However, there is no guidance on when to prefer this over the many adjacent siblings (honeypot_trap_detector, token_composite_safety_score, deployer_rug_forensics) or what to do when GoPlus/DexScreener lack coverage.

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