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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explains the bundled checks, the scoring mechanism, and the payment method (x402, $0.05). It does not mention authorization, rate limits, or side effects, but as a read-only check this is less critical.

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 description contains useful information but is somewhat repetitive (e.g., 'Token safety check before buying' appears twice). It is well-structured but could be tightened without loss of meaning.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description sufficiently explains the output (0-100 score with verdict) and covers input, usage context, pricing, and payment. It provides a complete picture for an agent to use the tool.

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% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds value by stating 'Input: token contract address + chain', providing an example address, and listing supported chains. This goes beyond the schema's enum values.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Token safety check before buying — is this token a honeypot or a rug pull?' It lists specific checks (honeypot, taxes, holder concentration, LP lock, liquidity) and the output (0-100 risk score with verdict). This distinguishes it from siblings like solana_token_safety which targets a different chain.

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 description explicitly targets 'trading agents screening a token' and notes that one call replaces three lookups, indicating efficiency. It provides context (EVM chains) and pricing, but does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to alternatives like crypto_token_dossier.

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