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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful traits: the data source (public RPC), the read-only inspection surface, and a paid invocation at $0.04 USDC on Base via x402 — payment terms are valuable context no annotation provides. It omits what happens on invalid/non-contract addresses, the scale or meaning of the 'heuristic risk score', and latency or failure 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?

A single dense sentence with zero filler; the operation, its scope, the inspected signals, and the cost are all front-loaded. Nothing repeated from the name or wasted.

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 low-complexity one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the chain, method, inspected surface, and pricing. The main residual gap is that return values (structure of the risk score and metadata) are not sketched, which matters somewhat given there is no output schema.

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?

One parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('0x contract address on Base'), so the schema already does the work and baseline is 3. The description reinforces the Base-only, contract-address constraint but adds no format, validation, or edge-case detail beyond the schema.

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: a risk check for a Base mainnet token/contract, enumerating exactly what is inspected (ERC-20 metadata, owner, EIP-1967 proxy, risky bytecode selectors) plus a heuristic score. This distinguishes it implicitly from base_token_price (valuation) and base_wallet_profile (wallet activity), though no sibling is named.

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?

Usage is implied by the scope ('token/contract risk check'), so an agent can infer it applies when assessing a token's safety rather than its price. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusions (e.g. EOAs vs contracts, non-Base addresses), and no named alternative among siblings.

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