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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the premium cost, x402 payment workflow, endpoint URL, X-PAYMENT header, free trial units, and output structure. This is strong transparency, though it does not explicitly say whether the operation is read-only or has other side effects.

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 a concise paragraph that front-loads the premium warning, then covers purpose, output, and access details. It is slightly dense but every sentence conveys necessary information without fluff.

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?

The description covers return values and access mechanism well, but it lacks guidance on which parameters to provide (e.g., query vs. address) and does not detail the 'detailed flags' output. Given no output schema, more specifics would improve completeness.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for chain, query, and address. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, but the schema is self-sufficient; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool performs 'Risk assessment for any token' and enumerates specific analysis components (liquidity depth, age, volume patterns, buy/sell ratio, FDV analysis). It also specifies the output (risk score 0-100 with flags), making the purpose distinct from sibling tools like token_scan or health_check.

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 indicates usage for 'any token' risk assessment, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare with alternative sibling tools, leaving the selection logic partially implicit.

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