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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, openWorld), so the bar is lower, and the description adds real context: the supply-concentration summary exposes shares only (no addresses), and it explicitly frames "moves" as a sequence, never a cause. That causal disclaimer is genuinely valuable behavioral disclosure beyond the annotations.

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 a dense but purposeful enumeration of returned sections. It is long only because there is no output schema, and each clause maps to real returned data rather than filler.

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, the description carries the return-value burden and does so thoroughly (valuation kind, price, liquidity, volume/trades, lifecycle, pools, concentration, contract checks). Combined with the readOnly/openWorld annotations, an agent has enough to call it correctly.

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 coverage is 75%, so the schema already documents days, slug, and min_change_pct. The description adds meaning the schema does not carry, explaining what include=["moves"] actually returns and how it relates to the day-on-day valuation moves.

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: one token's market data from HEY's daily index, and scopes it as a single-project read. It clearly differs from siblings like get_project_snapshot and lookup_token by its market/depth/lifecycle focus, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

There is no guidance on when to reach for this tool versus siblings such as lookup_token or get_project_snapshot. The only usage-like note concerns include=["moves"], which is really parameter behavior rather than tool-selection guidance.

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