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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral load and does disclose meaningful traits: the exact analysis scope (honeypot/sellability + admin-control + liquidity), the payment mechanism and cost ($0.01 USDC per call via x402), and the return shape (one decision + reason). It does not state that it is read-only and never executes the swap, nor any auth/error behavior.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the decision purpose and the checks, with cost placed last. No wasted words.

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 3-parameter gate tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, checks, cost, and the single-decision return. The main remaining gap is explicit statement that the tool does not execute trades and how failures are reported.

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%, so all three parameters are already documented in the schema. The description only weakly echoes trade size ("vs. your trade size") and adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so baseline 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?

States a specific verb (gate / GO-HOLD-BLOCK decision) and resource (Base ERC-20 swap) and enumerates the checks performed: honeypot/sellability, admin-control, and Uniswap v3 liquidity vs. trade size. It is clearly not a generic security scanner, though it does not explicitly name a sibling like chain_token_security to differentiate from.

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-trade" implies when to use it (before executing a swap), and the cost line tells the agent each call is paid. However, no explicit when-not condition or alternative tool is named, so usage is only implied.

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