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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses important operational behavior: it is a paid x402 call at $0.12, supports a prepaid x-credit-token header for unlimited calls, offers one free call per day, and requires no wallet or API key. It also describes the synthesis and verdict range, adding meaningful context not present in annotations.

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 information-dense and front-loads purpose before pricing and requirements. The promotional phrasing 'agent-ready intelligence you can't get free' and 'flagship report' add minor noise, but the overall structure is efficient and well organized.

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 single-parameter, read-only tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, required input, output nature, pricing, auth/access options, and the absence of wallet/API-key requirements. Agents have enough information to select and invoke the tool correctly without further inference.

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 schema already fully documents the single 'address' parameter, giving a baseline of 3. The description goes slightly further by specifying that the address refers to a Base token and that it is the required input, which adds network context not explicit in the schema.

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 specifies a clear verb and resource: produces a Claude-written due-diligence verdict for a Base token, aggregating token risk, holder concentration, price/liquidity, and OFAC sanctions into a structured verdict. This distinguishes it from more focused sibling tools by establishing it as the flagship composite report.

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 gives clear context for when to call it: when an agent needs a consolidated, agent-ready due-diligence verdict on a Base token in one call. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of a 5, but the use case is well implied.

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