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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: facts are read live, the service is free, and outputs are not financial advice. It does not cover rate limits or authentication needs, but those are less critical for a read-only public tool.

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 description is front-loaded with the core purpose and is reasonably efficient, covering facts, parameter usage, and behavioral notes in three sentences. The first sentence is long and lists many facts, which is informative but slightly dense; overall it earns its place.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema) and the rich annotations, the description covers what the tool does, what facts it returns, how to use the wallet parameter, and behavioral traits like live data and free access. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to call it correctly.

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?

The single parameter 'wallet' has 100% schema description coverage, and the tool description repeats the same usage ('Pass a wallet to check whether it gets the holder price'). No additional meaning (e.g., format details beyond the schema's pattern) is provided, so the baseline of 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?

The description states a specific verb (live facts) and resource ($SHIFT token on Ethereum) and lists the types of facts returned, making the purpose clear. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like token_price or token_verdict, which could also provide token pricing data.

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?

It gives clear context for usage: 'Pass a wallet to check whether it gets the holder price' and notes the tool is free and not financial advice. It does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives such as token_price or token_verdict, so it lacks explicit exclusions or alternative routing.

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