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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description does add real value beyond that: it discloses per-call pricing and specifies that payment goes in MCP headers (X-Payment / X-Payment-Tx / Authorization: Bearer fg_…) rather than in arguments. That usefulness is undercut by the contradictory price quoted ($0.01 vs $0.08 USDC) in the same text, which leaves the agent unsure of the actual cost.

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 definition is roughly three times longer than necessary: the same content is stated in the header line, in Chinese, and again in English, and the price is repeated with two different values. Front-loading the output contents is good, but the duplication and internal inconsistency make it noisy rather than efficient.

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 two-parameter, read-only, no-output-schema tool, listing the returned metrics plus the payment-header requirement covers the main operational facts. The gaps are the unexplained parameters and the conflicting price figures, both of which affect whether the agent calls it correctly and how it handles billing.

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 description coverage is 0% for both parameters (id and token), and the description only restates their names ('入参：token、id' / 'Args: token, id'). It does not say what token accepts (symbol vs address), what id identifies (token id, chain id, or request id), or whether either is required. With zero schema coverage, the description needed to compensate and does not.

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 resource and enumerates the concrete outputs: circulating/total/max supply, FDV ÷ market cap, unlock multiple, plus a pressure conclusion. That is clearly more than a restatement of the name. However, it never distinguishes this tool from the sibling token-supply.lookup, so an agent cannot tell from the definition alone which supply tool to pick.

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 framing 'Ask "what is the token supply pressure"' implies when the tool is relevant, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no named alternative among the sibling tools. Pricing and arg names are present, but those are not usage guidance.

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