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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool is deterministic, uses no LLM, completes in seconds, and is 'informational only' — implying no mutations. It also discloses the pricing model (USDC via x402) and the data sources (Blockscout and DexScreener). This is comprehensive for a read-only lookup.

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 two sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded, followed by the alternative and cost. Every phrase earns its place — the field list is packed but necessary, and the differentiation is succinct. There is zero 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?

For a simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description lists all expected return fields, mentions the data sources, cost, determinism, and the alternative tool. An agent has everything needed to decide when to invoke it and what to expect, without needing to guess at behavior.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific details beyond what the schema already provides; it mentions 'address' is a Base token contract, but that is in the schema. It adds context about cost and data sources but nothing that clarifies parameter usage further.

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 opens with a precise verb and resource — 'look up a Base token' — and enumerates the exact fields returned (name, symbol, decimals, total supply, holder count, price, liquidity, pool count, largest pool, FDV, 24h volume). It explicitly differentiates from the sibling token_check by calling itself the 'data half' and naming what token_check covers instead. This is a model of purpose clarity.

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 states when to use this tool versus the alternative: 'for contract ownership, holder concentration and a honeypot simulation, buy that instead.' It also calls itself the 'cheapest way,' implying cost-based selection, and notes 'informational only,' so it is clear this is not for contract analysis. Explicit guidance on when not to use it is present.

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