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

With zero annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: $0.01 per call, billing source (clink shop credits, an existing key), free conditions for 404/503/failed/empty calls, and the eight supported chains. It falls short of a 5 by omitting rate limits, latency, and whether the credit charge is debited before or after the check completes.

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 value proposition and output payload are front-loaded in the first sentence, and every later sentence adds real signal (checks performed, chain count, failure billing, pricing). The one long comma-chained sentence listing metrics is dense but each item earns its place given the absent output schema.

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, and the description compensates by enumerating the return shape (verdict enum, 0-100 score, risk level, red/green flags, summary, specific metrics, card, post counts). Combined with the checks performed, chain coverage, and billing rules, nothing material an agent needs before invoking it is missing.

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 both parameters are already documented, including the chain enum and the default of 'base'. The description adds only the loose '8 chains' note, which the enum already conveys. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (send a token contract, get a safety verdict) and enumerates exactly what the verdict contains: score, risk level, flags, metrics, card. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like token_holders (raw holder data) or token_verdict_batch (implied multi-token), so an agent can pick it without opening the 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?

Usage is implied by the pricing and failure semantics ('404/free if no source knows the token') rather than an explicit when-to-use rule. It never names the obvious alternatives (token_verdict_batch for multiple tokens, token_holders for raw data), so an agent must infer the routing. Cost preconditions ('paid from clink's shop credits, top-ups paused') are useful but not selection guidance.

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