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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, the description discloses the payment model: first eligible cached result is free, otherwise calls cost $0.001 USDC via x402. It also clarifies the output is market context only, which helps prevent misuse.

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 sentences cover function, scope, risk flags, caveat, and cost model with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and every sentence adds decision-relevant information.

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?

The description is sufficient for a one-optional-parameter read-only tool with strong annotations: it explains what is scanned, what filters and flags are applied, the non-advice nature, and the payment behavior. The only notable gap is the lack of any output-shape or result-format detail, which prevents a 5.

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 100%, and the x_payment parameter is already well documented in the schema with the challenge/retry flow. The tool description adds cost and caching context, but that is not essential to understanding the parameter semantics themselves, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Scan') and identifies the exact resource: rug-screened Robinhood Chain (4663) movers with honeypot filters and per-token risk flags. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling chain season tools like otto_base_season.

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 clearly frames when this is appropriate: when you need market context on Robinhood Chain movers. It also provides an explicit when-not by stating it is 'not a pick, recommendation, or trade instruction,' though it does not name alternative sibling tools.

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