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

Annotations already cover the read-only/idempotent safety profile, but the description goes well beyond them: it defines each flag, explains the wash-suspected detection mechanism and its volume/count asymmetry, warns that absence of the flag is not proof of a clean market, and states the score is a non-advisory automated estimate. That is unusually rich disclosure of method, error semantics, and limitations.

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?

Front-loaded with the core output definition, then layered with flag semantics and caveats; nearly every sentence carries distinct information. The parenthetical explanations and long final sentence make it dense, but nothing reads as filler.

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the return values and does so fully (score, grade, flags, ranked plain-English reasons), plus interpretation caveats and the batch-mode behavior. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret this correctly.

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 optional parameter is already documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3; the description adds value by spelling out that omitting 'asset' returns grade, score, flags and top reason for every asset, which clarifies the batch mode's output shape rather than just restating the field.

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 the exact artifact produced (a 0–100 score and A–E grade) and the three data sources it is computed from (QX order book, QSwap pool, six months of trades), which cleanly separates it from siblings like qmax_get_order_book or qmax_get_flow that return raw data rather than a derived grade.

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?

Gives concrete usage guidance for the one parameter ('omit asset to get every asset's grade in one call') and frames expected outcomes ('many assets grade D or E... that is information, not an error'), which prevents an agent from misreading results. It never names an alternative tool or an explicit when-not-to-use condition, so it stops short of a 5.

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