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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It covers cost, free tier, and the safety-first gating logic, but lacks details on authentication, rate limits, or side effects. The description is moderately transparent.

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 concise but packed with information, front-loading the core functionality. Some technical details (e.g., cost, endpoint) are included efficiently. Could be slightly more structured but is effective.

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 one parameter and no output schema, the description covers input format, output types, cost, and behavioral logic. It lacks output structure detail but is sufficient for agent understanding.

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?

The single parameter 'addr' is described as '0x Base token address' in both the description and schema, with no additional semantics added. Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline 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 the tool fuses on-chain safety and momentum into a single recommendation, listing possible outputs (GO, CAUTION, etc.) and specifying it's for Base tokens. It answers 'is this token safe to touch AND moving?', providing a distinct purpose.

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 description mentions cost and free tiers but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings like get_screen or get_signal. No alternatives or exclusions are given; usage context is implied but not directive.

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