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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses a real trait not in any structured field: the tool costs 150 sats via L402, so the agent knows payment/authentication is required. Beyond that it says nothing about the return format, latency, or whether it is read-only, leaving significant gaps.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero waste; the core purpose and the pricing caveat are both packed in efficiently. It is terse rather than padded, though the brevity contributes to the gaps elsewhere.

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 4-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is too thin. It states what the tool audits and what it costs but leaves parameters and return shape entirely undocumented.

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 0% across 4 parameters, yet the description adds no meaning for dex, token_in, token_out, or slippage_bps. At low coverage the description is expected to compensate, and it does not, so the agent must guess at parameter formats (token addresses, dex identifiers, slippage units).

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+resource: a pre-swap auditor for MEV sandwich and frontrunning risk. An agent understands exactly what it does. It doesn't differentiate from the related sibling solana_risk, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

"Pre-swap" implies when to call it (before executing a swap), which is useful temporal context. However, it names no alternatives and gives no explicit when-not conditions versus siblings like solana_risk or contract_audit, leaving the agent to infer routing.

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