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 adds real behavioral context beyond them: the per-call price (0.5 USDC via x402, listing payment chains) and, crucially, that 400/404/503 responses are not charged. This billing/error-charging disclosure is exactly the kind of trait annotations cannot express.

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 use case, then the return payload, then cost/error terms — a sensible order with little waste. The multi-chain pricing enumeration ('Solana, Base, Polygon, Arbitrum or Arc') is slightly verbose but justified as payment detail.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description needn't detail return shape, and it correctly focuses on purpose, triggering context, and cost/error-charging behavior. For a paid, read-only analytical tool this covers what an agent needs to invoke it correctly; only sibling disambiguation is thin.

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 every parameter (side, limit, symbol, min_usd, window_min, cooldown_min) is already documented with ranges and defaults. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 clear verb and resource: it tells you what price did after past liquidation cascades and enumerates the exact statistics returned (forward returns at 4 horizons, n, mean, median, hit rate, bootstrap interval, random-time baseline). This distinguishes it from alerting/history siblings by framing it as a backtest, though it doesn't name those siblings explicitly.

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?

'Use when an agent needs what price did after past liquidation cascades' gives a clear triggering context. But with many close siblings (get_cascade_history, get_cascade_forecast, get_cascade_alert, get_cascade_scan), the description offers no when-not or alternative-routing guidance to disambiguate among them.

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