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

Adds substantial context beyond the readOnly/openWorld annotations: pricing at $0.25 USDC via x402 with the payment passed in _meta['x402/payment'], a free sample endpoint, and the no-charge policy when a token can't be analyzed. It also discloses the dual nature of the response (facts plus AI write-up) so the agent can audit reasoning.

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 lead sentence is well front-loaded, but the body is a single dense run-on that packs an entire feature list into one block. The trailing example output is truncated and garbled ('facts':{'to. Price: $0.25 USDC…), which costs clarity even though the example itself is useful.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates fully by enumerating every returned field family and pasting a concrete sample JSON with schema id, verdict, riskScore, keyRisks, greenFlags, verifyNext, and facts. Billing, failure policy, and a free trial path are all covered, leaving nothing an agent needs before calling.

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%, with chain defaults and allowed values already documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about parameter behavior (e.g., what happens with an unsupported chain or a non-contract address), so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource: a 'full token / contract due-diligence report (risk score + AI analyst write-up)' for an ERC20 on Base/Ethereum/Arbitrum/Optimism. The enumerated contents (honeypot/tax/mint scan, holders, LP locks, price, AI verdict) make it clearly distinguishable from lighter siblings like token_safety or base_token_info.

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?

Gives explicit trigger conditions: 'before you buy, list, accept or integrate it,' and positions it as one-call full due diligence. It does not name the cheaper alternatives (token_safety, base_token_info, token_price) or say when the full report is overkill, so the routing guidance is strong but not complete.

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