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

Annotations only cover readOnlyHint and openWorldHint; the description adds two behavioral facts they don't: the payment model ('0.0100 USDC per call (premium: always paid)') and an interpretive caveat ('Objective signals, not a verdict'). The pricing disclosure is material for an agent deciding whether to invoke, which raises it above the annotation baseline.

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 bundled nature first, then routing guidance, then cost. Three dense clauses with no filler. Slightly compressed syntax ('(= liquidity-health)') but every element earns its place.

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 single-param read-only tool with no output schema, the description still previews the return content (risk flags, contract facts, pool liquidity in USD) and flags the premium cost, which is everything an agent needs to call it 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% and the single tokenAddress param is already fully documented in the schema (ERC-20 address on Base). The description adds no param-level syntax, format, or constraint 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?

The description states a specific verb+resource ('FULL token check (BUNDLE)') and enumerates exactly what it aggregates: GoPlus risk flags, contract/proxy/owner facts, and Uniswap v3 pool liquidity in USD. It explicitly names the sibling tools it subsumes (liquidity-health, contract-profile), so an agent can distinguish it without opening 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?

It gives an explicit selection rule: 'Use this instead of calling liquidity-health and contract-profile separately; use the individual tools only if you need just one aspect.' Both the when-to-use and the when-to-use-the-alternative conditions are stated, leaving nothing to inference.

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