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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses read-only nature, that evidence is gathered from three independent sources (GraphQL, REST, direct-RPC), that disagreements are surfaced explicitly rather than resolved into an opaque risk score, that no transaction action occurs, and that payment/credentials are bound to a specific GET URL rather than mcp://.

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 the purpose, then alternatives, then behavioral constraints; every sentence earns its place. Slightly dense with a long evidence enumeration, but there is no filler or repetition.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description does the work of describing the return content by enumerating the evidence dimensions, and it covers read-only semantics, routing, and payment/retry handling. It stops short of describing the response shape or error surface in detail, which is a minor gap for a single-param 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 description coverage is 100% — marketId is fully documented with a hex pattern and 'Base mainnet' qualifier. The description adds only the implicit scoping ('one Base Morpho market') and no additional syntax or format guidance beyond the schema, so the 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 (underwrite) and resource (one Base Morpho market) and enumerates exactly what evidence is produced (configuration integrity, liquidity, utilization, concentration, borrower health, bad debt, PreLiquidation availability). It also explicitly names the sibling tools it is not (morpho_position, morpho_protection, morpho_preliquidation_replay), so an agent can route without opening another 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?

Names the alternatives and the exact conditions that select them: morpho_position/morpho_protection for a single borrower's current state, morpho_preliquidation_replay for the economics of one completed historical event. It also states when-not (no transaction action) and the retry condition for identical authorized arguments.

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