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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnly, openWorld, non-idempotent), so the bar is lower. The description adds substantive behavioral context the annotations don't: explicit pricing ($0.25 USDC per call), settlement paths (x402 or prepaid credits), and the paid-only restriction, which materially affects invocation decisions.

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-loads the identity and content scope, then ends with pricing in its own sentence. The content list is long but each item is a distinct deliverable rather than filler, so it earns most of its length.

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 an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values, and with only two fully-documented params it isn't obligated to expand on inputs. It covers purpose, cost, and access tier completely; little of consequence is missing for a read-only analysis call.

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 only two documented parameters (address, chain with enum/default), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no syntax, format, or per-parameter guidance beyond the schema, matching the baseline 3 for high coverage.

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?

Opens by anchoring to a sibling (/token/24h) and immediately names itself the 'deep version', then enumerates the specific deliverables (hourly price path, volume vs 7-day normal, whale/exchange moves, unlocks, news, safety flags, ranked drivers, AI narrative). An agent can distinguish this from token-24h and token-report without opening a 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?

Being the 'deep version' of /token/24h plus the 'Paid only (not in the free trial)' note gives clear context for when to reach for it over the free/cheaper sibling. It does not explicitly state the threshold for choosing this over token-24h, so it stops short of a 5.

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