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

Annotations already carry readOnly/idempotent/openWorld/non-destructive, but the description adds genuinely non-derivable context: token labels are untrusted external text (a prompt-injection warning) and no trades are executed. It says nothing about rate limits or error behavior, so not a 5.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then the trust caveat, then the safety boundary. No filler and nothing buried.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description sketches the return payload ('market data and risk flags'), which is the key thing an agent needs to know. It omits any mention of failure modes or data freshness, keeping it short of complete.

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 the address parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the base58 pattern and the 'never send a private key' warning. The description adds no further meaning about the address argument, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: reading a public Solana *token* summary with market data and risk flags. The token scope implicitly separates it from the wallet-oriented siblings (get_top_wallets, get_wallet_summary), though no sibling is named.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus the wallet siblings, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. 'Does not execute trades' is a safety boundary, not usage guidance, so the agent must infer applicability from the noun alone.

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