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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses the exact analyses performed (honeypot, buy/sell tax, mintable risk, DEX liquidity, phishing, wallet drainers, prompt injection) and the upstream data sources (GoPlus, DexScreener). It omits operational traits such as latency, rate limits, read-only confirmation, and how unsupported targets behave.

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?

Two tight sentences with the scope up front and the concrete check list second; each clause carries information. The opener's "for AI agents" framing is mildly redundant in an MCP context but costs little.

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?

For a 2-param, read-style tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers targets, per-target checks, and data sources adequately. An agent still lacks any sense of response shape or timing, but nothing needed to select and call the tool is missing.

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 description coverage is 100% and both parameters are fully described there, including the chain enum default. The description restates the two target forms without adding format, validation, or chain-compatibility detail beyond the schema, 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?

States a specific verb (audits) and two precisely delimited resources (0x smart contracts/tokens vs web URLs), then enumerates the checks performed on each. An agent can distinguish this from sibling tools like package_audit, domain_intel, and web_extract without opening any schema.

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?

"Pre-flight security and scam radar" gives clear usage context: run this before interacting with or transacting against a contract/URL. It does not, however, name alternatives or exclusions (e.g., when to prefer domain_intel for URL reputation), so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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