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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful non-schema behavior: cost of $0.005 USDC per successful call over x402 on Base, Solana or Arc, with failed calls not charged, plus the fact results are limited to a recent window. It says nothing about latency, rate limits, or how the ratio behaves at window edges.

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?

The metric and its meaning are front-loaded in the first sentence, and the pricing/disclosure sentence is clearly separated at the end. The sibling-routing clause is dense and slightly awkward ('Related tools on this server, for a different need'), but no sentence is 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?

An output schema exists, annotations cover safety, there is one optional parameter at 100% coverage, and the description adds pricing, payment rail, and sibling routing. What remains unstated is the shape of the returned ratio (e.g., 0-1 vs percent) and edge behavior for small windows, though the output schema likely covers the former.

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% and the single 'blocks' parameter is fully documented there, so the description only needs to add meaning beyond it. The 'recent window (2-20 blocks)' framing ties the parameter to the metric's semantics, which is a modest but real addition. Baseline 3 applies, nudged up slightly for that framing.

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 metric (ratio of selected-chain blocks to total DAG blocks created and merged), the window bounds (2-20 blocks), and what the metric measures (DAG concurrency and block propagation density). It also names the sibling tools it is not, so an agent can separate it from crypto_kaspa_chain_color and crypto_kaspa_dag_state without opening either schema.

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?

It routes explicitly to crypto_kaspa_chain_color for blue/red merge-set counts and to crypto_kaspa_dag_state for a raw DAG snapshot, which gives a clear alternative for adjacent needs. It never states in so many words when this tool itself is the right choice, leaving the intended use (density measurement) to be inferred from the purpose sentence.

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