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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose one important trait beyond the schema: the endpoint is premium and unavailable anonymously, which prevents a failed call. It also characterizes the return (0-100 plus COLD/WARMING/HOT/EXPLOSIVE), but says nothing about failure modes, latency, or how the tool resolves a token when only some of the three identifying parameters are supplied.

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?

Two compact sentences: the availability constraint is front-loaded with a lock marker, then the scoring substance and output scale follow. Every clause carries information; there is no filler, though the parenthetical is slightly clunky.

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 scoring tool with no output schema, the description does cover the output shape and score semantics, which is the most important gap to fill. However, with no annotations and three loosely-required identifying parameters, an agent still lacks guidance on valid parameter combinations and on error behavior, leaving the definition adequate but not complete.

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%, so each of chain, query, and address is already documented, establishing the baseline of 3. The description adds no meaning about whether these are alternatives (name OR symbol OR address) or combinable filters — a real ambiguity given zero required parameters — so it does not exceed baseline.

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 specific computation ('composite momentum scoring') and enumerates the inputs to that composite: volume surges, price acceleration, buy pressure, boost activity. That is far more informative than the bare tool name and makes it distinguishable in spirit from siblings like viral_score or token_scan, though it never explicitly states how it differs from them.

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 only usage-relevant guidance is the premium/authentication note, which implies 'do not call this anonymously.' There is no statement of when to prefer momentum_score over viral_score, token_scan, or trending_memes, and no exclusions. Usage is inferable from the described output (a 0-100 momentum rating) but not spelled out.

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