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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: cost ($0.10/call), billing source (clink shop credits via an existing key, top-ups paused), and the free conditions (404 no known token, 503 sources down, failed/empty call). It also enumerates every returned field so the agent knows the shape of the result.

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 core capability and output fields, then moves to chains and billing. One long clause-chain sentence is dense but every clause adds usable information; only the repeated address/chain enumeration slightly duplicates the 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?

No output schema exists, yet the description lists the exact return fields plus per-verdict counts and a not_found list. Combined with supported chains, the 25-token cap, and the cost/failure model, an agent has everything needed to call it and interpret results.

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 are already documented. The description restates the chain list and the 1-25 address limit but adds no format or edge-case detail beyond the schema, making baseline 3 appropriate.

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 safety verdicts) with explicit scope: batch of up to 25 tokens, one row per token. The output field enumeration (verdict, score, flags, liquidity, holders) makes the result unmistakable, and the batch framing separates it from the sibling token_verdict.

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?

The batch limit and 'in one call' phrasing imply when to prefer this over the single-token sibling, and the chain default is stated clearly. It never explicitly names token_verdict as the alternative for single lookups, so the routing is left partly to inference.

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