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

With no annotations the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose meaningful traits beyond the schema: every fact carries source + checked_at (provenance/freshness) and the call is x402 paid at $0.030 USDC on Base. It does not restate read-only semantics or describe response structure, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the core value proposition (full profile in one call), then trailing details on provenance and cost. It is slightly overloaded with the payment and provenance clauses but every element earns its place.

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?

For a composite profile tool with no output schema, the description enumerates the payload and discloses cost and data provenance, which is most of what an agent needs to call it correctly. Remaining gaps are minor: no return-shape or pagination notes.

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 100%, so chain/coin_id/contract are already documented, and the baseline is 3. The description tangentially maps 'optional age/liquidity/market-cap' to coin_id, but adds no syntax, format, or default details 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?

Names a specific resource (token profile) and enumerates exactly what it returns: deployment, metadata, spot price, 24h change, age/liquidity/market-cap, recent activity. The 'one call' framing distinguishes it as a composite tool versus the narrower cortex_token_price and cortex_token_risk, but it never names a sibling 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?

The listing of bundled fields implies you use this when you want a full profile rather than a single metric, and 'optional age/liquidity/market-cap' hints that extra context requires coin_id. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no routing against the many sibling price/risk/aggregate tools.

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