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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: the per-call cost, the x402 payment mechanism, and the accepted networks (Solana or Base). It also clarifies the scope of what the tool does and does not check, which helps set expectations.

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?

Three tight sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, the exclusion is stated clearly, and the cost/payment detail is placed last where it is easy to scan. Every sentence earns its place.

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 single-parameter read-only tool with a full output schema and rich annotations, the description is complete. It covers what the tool returns, what it does not cover, the cost, and the payment network. An agent has everything needed to decide whether to invoke it and what input to provide.

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%: the only parameter, mint, is already documented as an SPL token mint address in base58. The description reinforces that the tool operates on SPL tokens but adds no new parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 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 identifies the tool as an SPL token rug-risk checker and enumerates the specific signals it returns: mint/freeze authority status, top-1/top-10 holder concentration, and risk flags. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from honeypot/LP-lock checkers, making its purpose and scope unambiguous relative to siblings like get_token_holders and get_token_metadata.

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 gives clear context: use this when you need rug-risk signals for an SPL token, and it explicitly says what it is not (a honeypot/LP-lock checker). It also surfaces the 0.01 USDC cost, which is important for deciding whether to call it. However, it does not name an alternative tool to use when honeypot/LP-lock checking is needed, stopping short of full when-not/alternative guidance.

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