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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the response includes an agent_trade_route with UniversalRouter, v4 Quoter, Permit2, and direct V2-pair swap recipes, which is valuable behavioral context beyond a simple 'get info' tool. It also mentions buy pages and an external API endpoint. It doesn't explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, but the content strongly implies it. A 4 is appropriate because it adds meaningful behavioral detail without explicitly stating side-effect-free behavior.

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 single dense paragraph that packs in token names, addresses, roles, and trade-route details. It's front-loaded with the '[FREE]' tag and the core purpose. It's slightly long and could be structured with line breaks for readability, but every sentence carries substantive information. A 4 is fair.

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 tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, so the description doesn't need to explain return values. It covers the key facts an agent needs: what tokens are included, what data is returned, and where to find more info. It doesn't mention whether the trade routes are executable or just informational, but the phrase 'so an agent can swap on-chain itself' implies executability. Given the zero-parameter simplicity and output schema presence, a 4 is appropriate.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema is trivially complete. The description adds context about what the returned data covers (contracts, prices, trade routes) and the specific tokens, which is useful for an agent deciding whether to call it. With 0 params, the baseline is 4, and the description meets that by providing rich context about the fixed output scope.

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's purpose: token discovery for four specific AgentPay-network tokens on Base, listing contract addresses, live prices, and trade routes. It names the specific tokens and their roles, making it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like get_arena_tokenomics or get_agwc_token.

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 this is a read-only informational tool for token discovery, and the '[FREE]' prefix suggests no cost or prerequisite. It doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_arena_tokenomics or get_agwc_token, but the specificity of the token list and trade-route focus provides clear context. No exclusions or alternatives are named, so it falls short of a 5.

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