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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that output is AI-written from chain facts, that it is not investment advice, that pricing is $0.20 USDC via x402, and that bad input returns 400 pre-payment (not charged). Latency, rate limits, and freshness of chain data are not covered, which keeps it below a 5.

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 trigger condition is front-loaded, followed by input, output fields, caveats, and an example — a sensible order with little wasted text. The only redundancy is a title that duplicates much of the body.

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 complex multi-chain composite tool with no output schema, the description successfully enumerates every major return field and flags dataGaps, so an agent can interpret the response. Missing are response size/format differences between json and markdown beyond the schema note, and any statement on how often chain facts refresh.

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 in structured data, and the description mostly restates the token prefix forms. It adds marginal value with a concrete example query and the format=json|markdown enumeration, but does not clarify defaults or length limits.

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 uses a concrete verb+resource framing ("one English brief on a token before trading or listing it") and enumerates the exact report sections (riskAssessment, liquidity, perpMarket, sanctions, dataGaps), so an agent knows precisely what it is buying. It stops short of naming siblings like base_token_risk / sol_token_risk, so the cross-chain composite scope is inferable rather than explicitly contrasted.

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 an agent needs one English brief on a token before trading or listing it" gives a clear trigger context. No exclusions or alternatives are stated, so an agent cannot tell from this text alone whether a narrower single-chain risk tool would be preferable.

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