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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that data is read live from-chain, that results are Ed25519-signed and timestamped, and that the risk score is recomputable from itemized factors. This goes beyond a basic description, though it omits potential caveats like failure modes or rate limits, so it's a 4 rather than 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 description is dense but efficient: it front-loads the tool's identity as a signed token-security oracle, then lists the risk facts, explains the signature/proof value, and closes with usage guidance and pricing. Every sentence carries useful content without redundancy.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description provides a thorough picture: what inputs to give, what facts are returned, how the score is computed, why the signature matters, and when to use it. This is complete for a moderate-complexity tool with only two inputs and a rich output set.

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% with both parameters already documented. The description adds minimal extra meaning—only restating that you give a contract and chain. It doesn't provide additional detail about address format or chain values 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?

The description clearly states the tool screens a token contract and returns on-chain risk facts, a risk score, and a verdict. It names specific outputs (honeypot status, taxes, mintable, etc.) and scope (given a token contract and chain). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like onyx_contract_audit or onyx_security_flags, so it falls short of a 5.

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 says 'Use before any agent swaps into or quotes an ERC-20 it didn't issue,' which gives clear when-to-use guidance. It does not mention when not to use it or alternatives, but this clear context earns a 4.

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