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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the operation is static, lists return fields (risk_score, risk_band, flags), and states a $0.02 USDC cost on Base. However, it does not explicitly state the operation is read-only or mention permissions, rate limits, or failure modes.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded, with each clause earning its place: purpose, risk factors, return values, and pricing. No waste or 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 simple 2-parameter tool, the description gives core information, but gaps remain: no output schema, no flag/risk_band semantics, no explicit supported chains, and no differentiation from 'token_risk_deep'. The cost and static nature help but are not sufficient for full context.

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 coverage is 0% and the description adds no explanation of the 'address' or 'chain' parameters beyond what the schema shows. 'Address' is self-explanatory, but the description does not help the agent understand what values are valid or how the chain parameter affects behavior.

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 this is a static on-chain token/contract risk scan, listing specific risk factors (proxy, mint, pause, blacklist, setFee, honeypot, verified source) and return fields. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling '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 implies use for token risk scanning but provides no guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings like 'token_risk_deep' or the defi_pool tools. No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternatives are mentioned.

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