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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does well: it discloses the conservative stance ('unknown' over guessing), per-mint result or explicit error handling, and the non-financial-advice disclaimer. It does not detail return format, rate limits, or behavior on malformed input beyond 'explicit error,' but the core behavioral traits are genuinely disclosed.

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?

The core purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, and the description packs purpose, scope, behavioral stance, disclaimer, and input requirement into a compact form. The 'Requires ?mints=...' fragment is mildly redundant with the schema, but every other sentence earns its place. Efficient and well ordered.

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?

Despite no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, batch scope, per-mint error semantics, the risk dimensions examined, and the input requirement. It gives a reasonable picture of expected results via 'each mint returns its own result.' It could add output structure or timeout behavior for 10 mints, but for a batch scan tool the coverage is strong.

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%, so the schema already documents the comma-separated format, 10-mint cap, duplicate removal, and example. The description's 'Requires ?mints=...' line reinforces the format but adds little beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('scan'), resource ('SPL token mints'), scope ('up to 10'), and mode ('batch... in ONE call'). The batch framing clearly differentiates it from the singular sibling solmachina_token_risk, and the parenthetical enumerates the specific risk dimensions checked. Purpose is unambiguous and distinct.

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?

Positions the tool as 'a portfolio/watchlist bundle over the token-risk engine,' which clearly implies batch use cases over the single-token alternative. It also discloses per-mint independent results. However, it does not explicitly name the alternative (solmachina_token_risk) or state an exclusion condition ('use single-token when you have one mint'), so some inference is required.

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