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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the per-call cost ($0.09 via x402), the output classification set, the conditional nature of contract-risk coverage ('where supported'), and explicit non-trading/non-predicting behavior. This is strong, though it doesn't address rate limits, error cases, or behavior on unsupported chains.

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 sentences pack a large amount of relevant information with no filler: the cost, the chains, the compared metrics, the gap-naming behavior, the output classes, and exclusions. Information is front-loaded and every phrase contributes value.

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 tool with no output schema and only 4 parameters, the description covers purpose, inputs (chains, data fields), outputs (classifications), cost, and exclusions. It addresses the variable risk-coverage behavior and explicitly lists the output categories, making the tool's behavior sufficiently complete for selection and correct invocation.

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 75% (limit, chains, min_liquidity have descriptions; x_payment does not). The description adds some context for chains (explicitly listing the four chains) and mentions data dimensions that map to filtering (liquidity, volume), but it does not compensate for the undocumented x_payment parameter. 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 a specific verb+resource: compares current token discovery attention across four named chains, and joins multiple data dimensions to produce research classifications. This distinguishes it from siblings like dex_token_data (single chain) and token_security_check (risk-only) by emphasizing crosschain aggregation and classification output.

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 provides clear context on what the tool does and its scope (crosschain research, not trading/profit prediction). It implicitly signals appropriate use cases (comparing attention across chains) but does not name alternative tools or explicitly state when not to use it beyond the 'never trades or predicts profit' clarification.

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