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 well: it discloses the output shape (JSON signals with block+evidence), the specific signals tested, the crucial caveat 'signals, not a safe verdict,' the failure mode (400 on bad input/EOA, not charged), and the payment model (x402, $0.009). This is unusually rich behavioral context for a read-only tool.

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-loaded with purpose, then usage, input, output, caveat, errors, and example in a logical order with no filler sentences. It is densely packed and the price/payment clause sits a bit awkwardly at the end, keeping it from a 5.

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, so the description must explain returns, and it does: the block+evidence JSON structure, the signals covered, the notChecked field, and the caveat that results are signals rather than a verdict. Error and cost handling are also covered, leaving nothing essential for correct invocation 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?

Only one parameter with 100% schema coverage, so the schema already documents address format, checksum, and the 400/not-charged behavior. The description's 'Input: address' and example add a usage example but little semantic detail beyond the schema, so 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 ('Base ERC-20 token risk scan') and enumerates the concrete checks (honeypot, rug pull, scam check). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like base_token_info (metadata) or base_token_flows (transfers), so an agent can route 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?

'Use when vetting a token' gives a clear use context, and the description implies this is the risk-assessment step of token analysis. However, it never names alternatives or states when NOT to use it (e.g., vs base_token_info), so it stops short of explicit routing guidance.

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