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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, but the description adds valuable behavioral context: it reuses GoPlus data without an extra upstream call, outputs only GoPlus's lock/burn numbers with no qualitative judgment, and is paid in USDC on Base. These details go beyond the structured fields and enrich the agent's understanding of side effects and constraints.

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 in the first sentence, followed by relevant technical details, exclusions, and cost. Every sentence contributes unique information with no fluff or repetition, making it efficient and easy to scan.

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 an output schema present and read-only annotations, the description covers the essential context: purpose, input semantics, data source, output category, exclusions, and payment. It is fully self-contained for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly, especially given the sibling differentiation.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, with both chain_id and contract_address clearly described. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage; the baseline of 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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: checking whether a token's liquidity pool is locked, burned, or held by a single wallet, and categorizes it as a rug-pull signal. It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling security.token_risk by noting that token_risk does not cover this check, making the specific resource and verb unmistakable.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance ('before trusting its liquidity') and exclusion criteria ('Do not use for honeypot or tax checks (use security.token_risk) or market price data'). Names the alternative tool and the conditions that route to it, leaving no ambiguity for the agent.

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