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

Annotations already indicate read-only and open-world behavior, but the description adds critical context: the tool costs $4.49 USDC via x402, unpaid calls return PaymentRequirements, and payment must be made with an x402-MCP client before retrying. It also lists the return components, which helps set expectations. No contradiction with annotations.

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 core purpose is front-loaded, but the payment details are repeated (cost mentioned twice) and the bracketed note feels like an afterthought rather than integrated structure. It could be more concise by removing redundancy.

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 complex tool with no output schema, the description adequately lists what the output includes (sources & uses, IRR grid, etc.) and covers the payment requirement, but it falls short on explaining the inputs—especially the five parameters—and how they affect the analysis, leaving agents without guidance on non-ticker arguments.

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%, so the description must compensate. It only indirectly clarifies the 'ticker' parameter as a US ticker, but provides no meaning for 'peers', 'price', 'assumptions', or 'exit_multiple', leaving these parameters undocumented.

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 it returns an LBO snapshot with specific components (sources & uses, 3 structures, IRR/MOIC, IRR grid, memo) for a US ticker, and specifies the exit assumption at peer-median EV/EBITDA. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_comps or get_financials, which focus on other financial analyses.

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?

It implies usage for LBO analysis on a US ticker with a peer-median exit multiple, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_comps or get_financials, nor does it provide exclusions or preconditions beyond the ticker being US-listed.

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