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

The description transparently discloses the cost ($0.35/call), the two-step payment process, and the condition that billing occurs only when a result is returned. No annotations exist, so this transparency is crucial.

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 a single sentence with two main clauses—purpose and payment instructions. It is dense but efficient, front-loading the core purpose before explaining the workflow.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description outlines the components of the report and explains the payment flow. It gives a sufficient mental model of the tool's behavior and expected results.

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 schema already provides descriptions for all parameters (chain, address, x402_payment). The tool description does not add new parameter semantics beyond what is in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 provides a full due-diligence report with specific components (verdict, on-chain signals, history, trend radar, rug-ledger cross-check). It is distinct from siblings like token_risk_verdict or scan_token by emphasizing it as a comprehensive report.

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 payment workflow instructions but does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like token_risk_verdict or token_risk_deep. It lacks explicit selection criteria.

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