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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent/openWorld annotations, the description discloses that the list is paid promotion rather than an endorsement and that each call costs $0.001 USDC via x402. It also states the output fields. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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?

Three sentences, each carrying distinct information: what the tool returns, the paid-promotion caveat, and the exact cost. The phrasing 'bought into by projects' is slightly awkward, but there is no redundancy or wasted content.

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 simple read-only list with two optional parameters, the description covers the core content (promoted tokens with quotes), key return fields, and a critical cost constraint. It leaves ordering/pagination details unstated, but no output schema exists and the annotations already communicate the open-world, non-destructive nature.

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 only 50%: chain is documented with an example, but limit has no schema description. The tool description does not mention either parameter or explain how limit/chain affect results, so it fails to compensate for the partially documented 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?

The description identifies a specific resource: currently boosted/promoted DEX tokens, and lists the returned enrichment (price, liquidity, 24h volume). It distinguishes itself from ordinary market-data tools by emphasizing 'paid promotions' and the paid call cost, though it never explicitly names the closely related sibling market_dex_boosted_tokens.

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 context—paid Boosts with live quotes and a per-call cost—implies when to use it (when the agent specifically wants promoted tokens rather than organic market movers). However, it gives no explicit when-not-to-use guidance and no alternative sibling names, leaving the agent to infer its niche among many market_* tools.

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