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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses the paid cost model ($0.01 USDC on Base via x402), the data provenance (deepest WETH or USDC pool on Uniswap v3), the exact risk-score semantics (0-100 with reasons), and its neutrality stance. It omits failure modes (non-token or non-contract address handling) and data freshness/caching, which keeps it below 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?

One dense but well-ordered sentence that front-loads purpose before enumerating outputs, plus a short closing line on neutrality and pricing. Every clause maps to a real attribute an agent would care about; the output enumeration is long but earns its place given there is no output schema.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must describe returns — it does, listing risk score, token metadata, ownership/renouncement, proxy detection, owner-only bytecode functions, and pricing/liquidity. Combined with the cost and data-source notes, an agent has what it needs to call and interpret the tool; only error/edge-case behavior is absent.

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% and the single parameter's schema description already says 'Token contract address on Arbitrum One', so the description adds no new meaning about the address argument. Baseline 3 applies when 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+resource ('rug check and due-diligence snapshot of an ERC-20 token on Arbitrum One') and enumerates the exact data returned. The chain qualifier cleanly separates it from the base/eth/optimism/polygon/solana token_snapshot siblings, and 'ERC-20 token' separates it from arbitrum_contract_info.

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 opening phrase ('Rug check and due-diligence') gives an unambiguous use case, and 'Facts only, no buy or sell opinion' frames the intent. It stops short of naming alternatives or exclusions (e.g., when to prefer token_risk_check or arbitrum_contract_info instead), so it does not reach a 5.

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