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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and adds substantial behavioral context: exact cost ($0.02 USDC), payment protocol (x402 exact on a specific Solana network), data sources, and the error behavior for non-paying clients. It does not state whether the report is read-only or describe output/rate-limit 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?

Two tightly written sentences front-load the core purpose and payment requirement, then add implementation and failure details. Every sentence contributes useful information with no filler.

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 paid, single-parameter tool with no annotations or output schema, the description covers the critical invocation context: cost, payment mechanism, data sources, and error behavior. It remains somewhat incomplete about what the returned risk report contains and how to interpret the mint parameter.

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 0% and the sole parameter, mint, has only a regex pattern with no description. The tool description does not explain that mint is a token mint address, its expected format, or what the value is used for, so it does not compensate for the schema gap.

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 a token risk report and names the sources it combines (RPC mint/freeze authority, Jupiter Tokens V2, RugCheck). It implicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like build_swap_tx and get_quote, but does not explicitly name alternatives or state the action in verb form.

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?

It states the payment precondition and failure mode for clients that cannot pay, which implies when the tool is usable. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this versus a quote, swap, or portfolio tool, nor does it describe exclusions.

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