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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses the paid nature, the exact two-call x402 payment sequence, and the guarantee that the caller is only charged when a result actually comes back. This is significant behavioral context that annotations do not capture.

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 dense but purposeful, covering cost, report contents, and the two-step payment flow without fluff. It could be improved with structural formatting, but every sentence contributes useful information.

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, multi-step x402 tool with no output schema, the description explains prerequisites, call sequence, payment mechanics, and what the returned report will include. It is not missing essential call-time information, although an explicit note about possible errors or non-payment responses would make it fully complete.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that x402_payment should be omitted on the first call scrape, matching the schema, but it does not materially extend parameter understanding beyond what the schema already states.

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 states a specific resource ('HostDeFi full due-diligence report') and enumerates the report's contents (verdict, on-chain signals, verdict history, trend-radar, rug-ledger). It is clear and detailed, though it does not explicitly name or contrast sibling tools like token_risk_verdict or token_risk_deep.

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 explicit calling workflow: first call without x402_payment to receive requirements, pay one of the accepts array, then call again with x402_payment set. It also clarifies charging behavior. Missing an explicit statement of when to prefer this over other token tools, but the workflow itself is strong.

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