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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, but the description adds materially more: the detection heuristic (90%+ drop from peak = rug or dump), the ordering, and a real operational constraint — 5 free calls/day then $0.002 per call via x402 USDC on Base. Cost and rate-limit disclosure is exactly the kind of behavior an agent must know before calling.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. The core definition and ordering are front-loaded, the usage line and the pricing caveat follow, and every clause (threshold, ordering, fields, price) carries information the agent needs.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing the return — and it does: peak and remaining liquidity, hours from launch, creator wallet. Combined with the single well-documented parameter and the read-only annotation, nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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%: the single `hours` parameter already documents its default (24) and 1–168 range. The description's phrase 'in the last hours' merely restates the window concept without adding format or edge-case guidance, 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?

States a specific resource (new Base tokens whose pool liquidity collapsed 90%+ from peak) plus ordering (newest first) and the returned fields. The signal is a market-wide collapse feed, which is clearly distinct from the sibling tools check_address_safety / check_token_safety / check_token_creator that evaluate one address or token at a time.

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?

Gives explicit intended uses: 'exit positions and blocklist serial creators', which tells the agent the decision context. It does not, however, name an alternative tool or state when this feed is the wrong choice (e.g. for vetting a single token before buying, where check_token_safety fits).

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