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

Annotations only declare readOnly/openWorld/non-idempotent, so the description carries heavy extra weight and mostly delivers: it discloses the paid x402 requirement, that unpaid calls return a structured payment_required challenge rather than fabricated data, that refusals refund the debit, and that resolution requires polling until horizon_end. It also clarifies the output is a policy verdict, not a trade. It slightly muddies the picture by mixing in S07 persistence product detail that belongs to a different instrument.

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 entire description is one dense run-on paragraph, and it literally repeats 'After paying, poll /v1/resolutions/:id until horizon_end' twice. It also front-loads payment rails ahead of the scan's purpose, so the useful content is buried and the text does not earn its length.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description adequately covers payment and polling. However, for a tool this complex it omits when to prefer it over sibling decision tools and reads partly as product marketing, leaving the selection decision under-supported.

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 0%, so the description must explain the single parameter, and it does: payer is a Base address 0x…, passable as a tool argument, via the x-tollbridge-payer header, or via an x402 PAYMENT-SIGNATURE. That fully compensates for the empty schema, though the exact format constraint is only implied by '0x…'.

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: a 'funding-anomaly scan across BTC/ETH/SOL' returning per-asset funding (bps), basis (bps), and the S06 engine decision. That is concrete and distinguishable from generic siblings, though it never positions itself against tollbridge_decision or tollbridge_get_decision, which appear to overlap.

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?

Most guidance is about payment mechanics (how to pay, which rail, what an unpaid call returns) rather than when to choose this scan over sibling analysis tools. It does note that current USDC should come from tollbridge_pricing, which is a genuine routing hint, but the analytical 'use this when...' condition is left implicit.

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