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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does useful work: it discloses the exact paid-call cost ($0.01 USDC on Base via x402) and states 'Facts only, no buy or sell opinion.' It still does not explicitly state read-only/non-destructive behavior, rate limits, or error conditions, but it adds substantial context beyond the schema.

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 description is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no filler; every clause about outputs, no-opinion stance, and cost is relevant. However, the long output-field enumeration makes it dense and slightly less scannable than it could be.

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?

Given that there is no output schema and no annotations, the description does a thorough job enumerating the returned risk score, token metadata, ownership details, proxy detection, bytecode findings, and market data. It also discloses payment cost and source pools, leaving little essential context missing for a one-parameter snapshot tool.

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?

There is only one parameter, and the input schema already fully documents it with a pattern and description ('Token contract address on Ethereum'). The description restates the Ethereum/ERC-20 context but adds no further syntax or semantic detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states a specific resource and scope: a due-diligence snapshot of an ERC-20 token on Ethereum, with a detailed enumeration of returned fields. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from nearby siblings like token_risk_check or eth_contract_info, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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 phrases 'Rug check and due-diligence snapshot' imply the intended use case, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or alternatives among the many sibling tools. An agent can infer the context, but routing decisions remain underspecified.

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