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

Annotations already mark the tool readOnly/openWorld/idempotent, and the description adds valuable behavioral context: the per-call cost, the Solana-only constraint, and the specific 400 invalid_mint rejection for EVM addresses. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 compact, front-loads the cost and core purpose, and packs the chain restriction, error behavior, and alternative tool into one additional sentence. Every clause earns its place.

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 paid read-only analysis tool without an output schema, the description covers the key output factors, chain restriction, error case, and alternative tool. The payment workflow is documented in the input schema, so nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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 schema covers 100% of parameters and documents the payment proof workflow. The description adds meaningful semantics for the address parameter by clarifying it must be a Solana address and that EVM addresses are rejected, which goes beyond the schema's generic 'Path parameter address'.

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 states a specific function (Solana token risk scoring and rugcheck analysis) and lists 11 concrete factors. It explicitly differentiates this tool from treasury_defender for EVM tokens, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings at a glance.

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 explicitly says 'SOLANA ONLY' and explains the failure mode for EVM addresses. It also names the exact alternative, treasury_defender, for EVM token risk, giving clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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