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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses a real behavioral trait — an x402 payment of $0.020 USDC on Base per call — and notes the response includes per-claim evidence, but says nothing about auth flow, latency, or failure/rate-limit behavior for a paid external call.

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 compact sentences that front-load the deliverable and then append the cost/payment detail. No filler, though the parenthetical list is dense shorthand rather than explanatory.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description should do more: it hints at return structure ('per-claim evidence') but does not describe the verdict shape, scoring dimensions, or when results are inconclusive. The payment model is covered, but the analytical output remains underspecified.

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% (chain enum-style list, coin_id purpose, contract pattern), so the schema already documents all three parameters well. The description adds no parameter detail beyond what the schema provides, so the 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 deliverable (a 'token risk verdict') and enumerates its components (age, liquidity, contract checks, suspicious-transfer scan), which distinguishes it from price/intel siblings like cortex_token_price and cortex_token_intel. It does not name those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation is inferential rather than stated.

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 use this tool versus the similarly-scoped cortex_token_intel, cortex_token_price, or cortex_whale_alerts. Usage must be inferred entirely from the tool name and the verdict components listed.

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