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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), and the description adds real behavioral context on top: this is a descriptive analysis that deliberately withholds verdicts about rugs, safety, or whether development halted. That boundary is genuinely useful for an agent deciding whether to trust its output as an assessment.

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 with no filler, and the scope (one project) plus the analytical pairing are front-loaded. The phrasing 'beside its builder activity, and where the two disagree' is slightly convoluted to parse, but no sentence is wasted.

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 burden of conveying what comes back, and it does list the substantive content areas (liquidity vs prior level, trading, pool migration, builder activity, divergences). It omits format, depth, and time-window behavior, which is the only notable gap for a single-param analysis 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% and the single slug parameter is fully documented in the schema with an example, so the description owes nothing here. It adds no format, naming, or resolution detail beyond what the schema already provides, making the 3 baseline correct.

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?

The description names a specific scope (one project's tracked token market) and a specific analytical framing (market events set against builder activity, and where the two diverge), which separates it from the pure-data sibling get_token_market. It stops short of a crisp verb+resource statement — 'what happened' is abstract — and never names a sibling explicitly, so it falls short of a 5.

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 meaningful negative guidance ('never whether development stopped, and never calls a project a rug or safe'), which tells the agent what questions this tool will not answer. However, it never states when to prefer this over get_token_market, get_project_snapshot, or compare_projects, so the positive routing decision is left to inference.

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