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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/open-world, so the bar is lower; the description adds the commercial terms ($0.25, half for holders) and the x402 payment mechanics, which are essential behavioral context for a paid call. It does not cover latency, timeout, or what happens on payment failure, so it stops short of 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?

Front-loaded with the deliverable, then the use case, then the free alternative, then the payment mechanic — a sensible ordering with no filler. 'Pass the x402 payment as `payment`' partially duplicates the schema, and the crew branding sentence is marginal.

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 output schema, the description carries the return-shape burden and does it well: an answer built only from published sources, each linked to explorer.imd.fun, with coverage and gaps stated. Payment flow and the free alternative are both covered; only failure/timeout behavior is left implicit.

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 67% with the payment and holderWallet fields richly documented including a detailed holder-pricing explanation. The description adds the `question` topic constraint (short evidence report on an IMD/onchain/AI-agent question) and restates the payment handoff, but adds little beyond what the schema already spells out for the payment fields.

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+resource — a sourced research report whose answer is drawn only from the IMD swarm's published research, audits, contracts and sites, with every source linked and coverage/gaps noted. The scope (IMD, onchain, AI-agent questions) and the 'no source, no claim' constraint make it clearly distinguishable from descriptive/generative siblings.

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?

Explicit trigger ('Use when an agent needs a short evidence report on...') and an explicit cheaper alternative with its name and ordering: 'Free first: swarm_mind_ask.' An agent knows both when to reach for this and what to try before paying.

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