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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the transparency burden. It explicitly states the tool is deterministic, rule-based, does not use an LLM, and is informational only. It also mentions the price and payment method, giving users a complete picture of the tool's behavior and limitations.

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, packed sentence but remains focused and structured. It efficiently lists data sources, outputs, and key characteristics. While the inclusion of pricing could be seen as extra detail, it is relevant for a paid tool and does not bloat the description. Overall, it is concise without being terse.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity and lack of an output schema, the description sufficiently covers what the tool returns and its nature. It mentions the score, risk flags, and specific data points, which gives a user enough context to understand the tool's scope. It does not delve into error cases or edge conditions, but such details are not typically required for a well-scoped utility tool.

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 already provides high coverage (100%) with descriptions for both parameters. The tool description adds meaning by explaining that the address is a token contract and that the chain is Base, aligning with the schema's 'const' value. It also clarifies what the address is used for in the context of the safety card, adding value beyond the schema.

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: providing a deterministic token safety card for Base tokens, with specific data sources (Blockscout, DexScreener, Honeypot.is) and outputs (contract, control, holders, trading venues, buy/sell simulation, risk flags, score). It is distinct from sibling tools like defi_protocol or yield_report, which focus on different DeFi aspects.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool: for token safety assessment on Base. It sets expectations with 'No LLM' and 'Informational only', which helps users decide if they need a deterministic, non-analytical check. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools, so it lacks explicit when-not guidance.

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