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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, but the description adds substantial operational context: reads via eth_getLogs, a bounded recent window constrained by the RPC log-range quota, a cap of 50 returned logs, and a per-call price (0.0050 USDC, always paid). The cost and quota limits are decision-relevant facts an agent cannot get from the annotations.

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?

Six short sentences, each carrying distinct information (purpose, filter, return shape, window limit, sibling routing, pricing), with the core purpose front-loaded. No filler or repetition.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by describing the return payload (up to 50 logs with block, tx hash, topics and data), the query window, the filtering option, and the cost. An agent has everything needed to decide and call correctly.

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 the schema already documents address, topic0 (32-byte event signature hash) and windowBlocks (10-120, default 100). The description restates the topic0 filter and the bounded window but adds no new syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond the schema. 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 and resource ('Recent event logs for any contract on Base'), names the underlying mechanism (eth_getLogs), and explicitly differentiates from sibling tools whale-wallet-tracker and token-deploy-radar. An agent can identify this as the generic event-log reader without inspecting any 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?

Explicitly routes the agent: 'Use this for generic event queries not covered by whale-wallet-tracker or token-deploy-radar.' Two alternatives are named, giving clear context. It stops short of stating what those siblings actually cover, so the when-not condition requires the agent to already know them.

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