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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/non-idempotent. The description adds materially new behavior: per-call cost ($0.03 USDC via x402 or prepaid credits) and free-trial availability, which is real invocation context the annotations do not carry. It stops short of latency, limits, or failure semantics.

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 core scope statement, then the data contents, then the pricing. The enumeration of returned fields is long but each item is information-bearing for a 'deep' report tool; no filler sentences.

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 need not explain return values, yet it usefully characterizes the report's coverage, and it discloses pricing/trial terms. Nothing essential to calling it correctly is missing, though sibling differentiation vs wallet/wallet-report is left implicit.

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% and both parameters (address, chain) are documented there, so the baseline is 3. The description only restates the supported chains, duplicating the enum rather than adding format or constraint detail beyond the schema.

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 (deep wallet report) and defines its scope explicitly as a superset: 'everything in /wallet ... plus recent transactions and token transfers'. The contrast with the sibling 'wallet' tool is built into the phrasing, so an agent can distinguish it without opening schemas.

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 concrete use cases (due diligence, copy-trading research, agent payments) and implies this is the fuller option versus /wallet. However it never states when to prefer the cheaper 'wallet' or 'wallet-report'/'wallet-risk' siblings instead, so the routing signal is partial.

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