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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the method ('Deterministic, no LLM'), an explicit limitation ('a pass is not a guarantee'), and the commercial/auth mechanics ('Price $0.05 per call, paid with USDC over x402'). An agent can anticipate cost, latency profile, and the epistemic weight of the result before calling.

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?

Front-loaded with the verdict contract, then the signal list, then the caveat and price in a single dense paragraph — every clause carries content. It is slightly list-heavy inside one sentence, but nothing is redundant.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description must stand alone, and it substantially does: it enumerates the returned components ('the reasons and the numbers that tripped them'), the verdict taxonomy, the underlying data sources, cost, and limitations. Only exact response structure/field names are absent, which is acceptable for a two-parameter 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and both parameters are fully documented there (address pattern, chain enum 'only base'), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only echoes the scope with 'one Base token' and adds no format, validation, or sourcing detail 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?

Names a specific resource and outcome ('one rule-based verdict before a swap on one Base token: pass, caution or block') plus the exact signals evaluated, so an agent knows precisely what it gets. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from close siblings like token_check or token_report, which also inspect tokens.

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?

'before a swap on one Base token' establishes a clear pre-trade gating context, which is a stronger usage signal than most definitions provide. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g. token_info/token_check) or stating when not to use it, so it is context-clear but not exclusion-complete.

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