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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-derivable behavior: a per-call cost of 0.025 USDC and the x402 payment rails/chains. It stops short of rate limits or latency expectations, but the paid-call model is important context beyond the annotations.

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 usage trigger, followed by a tight enumeration of returns and the cost, in two sentences with no filler. Every clause carries selection-relevant information.

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, yet the description still summarizes the return surface for fast selection, and it closes the loop on the paid-invocation model. For a single-parameter tool with rich annotations and a schema, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly 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 'mint' parameter is fully documented as 'the SPL token mint address'. The description adds no format or constraint detail for the parameter, so the schema does the heavy lifting — 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 and resource ('pre-trade check on a Solana token') and then enumerates the exact outputs (mint/freeze authority, Token-2022 traps, holders, pool depth, price impact, pump.fun progress, verdict). This detailed output profile distinguishes it from siblings like get_honeypot_check or get_token_risk, which cover narrower slices.

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?

Gives a clear trigger scenario: 'Use when an agent needs a pre-trade check on a Solana token.' This anchors the decision context well, but it names no alternatives or exclusions, so an agent facing overlapping siblings (get_token_risk, get_honeypot_check, get_sol_token_flow) gets no routing guidance.

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