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

Since no annotations are provided, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It clearly discloses the cost, the payment requirement, the two-phase calling pattern, and that charges only occur when a result is returned. It also explains the output components (grade, score, prose, signals) which helps set expectations. This is comprehensive for a paid API tool.

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, well-structured paragraph that front-loads the most important information: cost and the two-step payment process. Every sentence adds critical operational detail (cost, output, payment flow, charge condition). There is no fluff or redundancy; it is appropriately sized for the complexity of a paid two-phase API.

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, output composition) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers the payment protocol, the exact parameters' usage, and the expected result. An agent has everything it needs to correctly call this tool without additional documentation, making this a top-tier definition.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds significant value by explaining the special semantics of x402_payment (omit on first call to receive requirements, then set to the base64 payload). This goes beyond the schema's generic description, clarifying the workflow. It doesn't elaborate on chain/address formats, but the schema already lists examples, so this is a strong score.

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 a paid token safety verdict (grade, score, prose) for a given chain and address. It distinguishes itself from siblings like token_report and token_risk_deep by specifying the A–F grading system and the specific signals (liquidity, holders, authority), making it a unique offering among the tool set.

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 explicitly outlines the two-step paid workflow: first call without x402_payment to receive payment requirements, then call with the payment payload. It mentions the cost ($0.02/call) and the use of any x402 client/wallet. It doesn't name alternatives, but the payment flow is the critical usage context, and the tool's uniqueness makes alternatives less relevant. However, it could have mentioned that for deeper risk analysis, one might use token_risk_deep, but the description's focus on the payment process is adequate for correct usage.

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