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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavior beyond that: newest-first ordering, a hard 7-day lookback limit, that each event is signed with the mark price at the time, and that calls are paid ($0.005 USDC via x402 on Base or Solana) — the payment requirement is material for an agent. It still doesn't describe pagination or volume of results.

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 purpose, ordering, and window before the payment and disclaimer boilerplate. Dense and mostly waste-free; 'Not investment advice' is the one sentence that serves legal rather than agent needs.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs to call it correctly: the event definition, time window, sort order, cost and payment rails, and the absence of destructive side effects. Nothing material 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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter is fully documented in the schema ('ISO timestamp within the last 7 days'). The description restates the 7-day constraint but adds no syntax or format detail beyond it, so the 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+resource ('crowd-state events') and defines the event semantics ('a perp entering or leaving a state') since a timestamp. An agent can tell what it returns without opening the schema. It does not, however, name the adjacent siblings (crowd_history, crowd_states) to disambiguate which one to pick.

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?

'For bots that poll' identifies the intended consumer and implies a polling pattern, which is useful context. But it gives no when-to-use vs. when-not guidance and never mentions the obvious alternatives (crowd_history, crowd_states), so selection among the crowd_* siblings is left to inference.

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