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

Annotations already carry readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: 'Figures only, no health score' scopes the output, the DefiLlama source with link and date discloses provenance, and 'rows with flags need a caveat' warns of data-quality caveats the caller must surface.

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 compact and front-loads the core scoping ('Revenue-earning projects with NO token') before the returned fields and the tc_screen pointer. The long parenthetical example list and the semicolon-joined sourcing note make it dense, but no sentence is pure filler.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe return values, and it does: revenue pace, 12-month figure, 30-day change, category, chains, and token_status. Provenance and caveat handling are also covered. What is missing is any note on row limits/pagination behavior or how sorting and filtering interact on a 7-parameter tool.

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 only 43%, so the description has to compensate, and it partly does: it spells out the token_status values ('public_equity with a stock ticker') and names the metrics that map onto the sort enum. However, it says nothing about chain, limit, or query semantics, leaving several parameters documented only by the bare schema.

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 names a precise resource: revenue-earning projects that lack a token, with concrete examples (wallets, trading bots, apps, launchpads, stablecoin issuers, listed companies) and the exact metrics returned. It also distinguishes itself from tc_screen, which ranks apps and tokens together. The only weakness is that no explicit verb appears and the 'NO token' framing sits awkwardly beside a token_status enum that includes 'launched' and 'public_equity'.

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 gives one complementary-usage hint ('Use with tc_screen to rank apps and tokens together in a category'), which implies this tool supplies the no-token side of that comparison. There is no explicit when-to-use versus when-not-to-use guidance, and no guidance on when a caller should prefer tc_list_tokens or tc_get_project instead.

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