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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds critical behavioral context: the exact price ($0.30 USDC per call), payment methods (x402 or prepaid credits), that it is paid-only (not in free trial), and that project footprint data is organisations-only with no personal data. This goes beyond what annotations provide, though it does not cover rate limits or auth requirements beyond payment.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the first front-loads the purpose and scope, the second routes to an alternative, and the third covers pricing and eligibility. No filler or repetition; the structure is efficient and easy to scan.

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 the existing output schema, annotations, and 100% schema coverage, the description is complete for correct invocation. It adds pricing, payment model, scope of personal data, and an explicit sibling alternative—everything an agent needs to decide whether and how to call this 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%, so the schema already documents both parameters (address and chain enum). The description adds no additional syntax, format, or semantic detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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+resource ('due diligence on a token AND the project behind it') and enumerates the exact outputs (contract safety verdict, market data, public footprint, recent news, AI report, red flags). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling /token/report by naming the on-chain depth alternative, so an agent can route correctly without opening either 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?

Provides clear context: use this for a combined token+project due diligence in one call, and explicitly names /token/report as the alternative for on-chain depth. It also states the pricing and that it is paid-only (not in free trial). Exclusions are limited to the one named alternative; no explicit when-not guidance beyond that.

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