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

Annotations only cover readOnlyHint/openWorldHint; the description adds material behavioral context the agent would otherwise lack: the $0.005 USDC cost, the prepaid-key vs per-call x402 payment path, and the cached-scan-or-live-GoPlus data source. It stops short of noting latency or rate limits for live scans, and there is a mild tension between openWorldHint=false and pulling live external data.

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?

A single tight sentence that front-loads the price and the use case, then lists the checks. Every clause carries information; 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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing results, and it does name the headline return value (0-100 risk score) and the individual check dimensions. It does not describe the response structure or how cached vs live results differ, which leaves a small 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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (address, api_key) are already fully documented in the schema, including the x402 payment mechanism. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (token risk lookup) scoped to Base tokens, and enumerates exactly what is checked: honeypot, cannot-sell, hidden owner, mintable, buy/sell tax, plus a 0-100 risk score. This distinguishes it cleanly from siblings like lookup_coin, lookup_pool, and lookup_protocol.

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?

"Use before buying a Base token" gives clear, actionable timing context for when the agent should invoke it. It does not name an alternative or state when-not-to-use, but the pre-purchase framing is unambiguous.

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