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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds crucial behavioral context about the payment requirement and the two-call flow, which is not in the annotations. It also clarifies the charging condition. While it doesn't describe the output structure, the annotations plus description give a solid behavioral picture.

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?

The description is efficient, with four sentences each carrying distinct information: purpose, payment requirement, two-step call process, and billing behavior. It front-loads the core purpose and payment note before the procedural details. No fluff, but it is slightly dense for a single paragraph.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (paid, two-step flow) and lack of output schema, the description adequately covers the payment mechanism, the need for a second call, and the types of signals returned. It doesn't specify the exact output format or error handling, but the signal list gives a reasonable expectation. The tool is specialized, and the description provides enough to use it correctly.

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?

The input schema already describes both parameters (mint as a Solana mint address, x402_payment as a base64 X-PAYMENT payload), so schema coverage is 100%. The description reinforces the role of x402_payment in the payment flow, but doesn't add new semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides. The baseline 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 states the tool's purpose: it provides pre-graduation on-chain signals for a Solana mint, listing specific signal types (bundled-launch detection, holder concentration, Token-2022 traps, authority state). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like token_risk_deep or scan_token, which likely focus on post-graduation or general analysis. The verb is implicit but the resource and scope are explicit.

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 an explicit two-step usage flow: first call without x402_payment to get an `accepts` array, then pay and call again with the X-PAYMENT payload. It also states that charging only occurs when a result is returned, which clarifies the cost model. This is direct, actionable guidance that removes ambiguity for an agent.

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