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

Annotations cover read-only, idempotent, open-world safety. The description adds critical non-annotation behavior: x402 pricing ($0.75 per call), prepaid x-credit-token header for unlimited calls, no free tier, no API key required, and the specific verdict components returned (issuer-control score, seizure risk, red flags, hold/avoid recommendation).

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 core purpose and composed dimensions, and payment details are useful. Some marketing phrasing ('premium tier', 'no ERC-20 tool can produce it') is mildly expendable but not harmful.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be explained, yet the description still outlines the verdict. It covers payment, input, and output adequately, though it does not clarify how it relates to narrower B20 sibling tools, which would help given the crowded suite.

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 single parameter is fully documented. The description merely repeats 'Required input: address', adding no format, validation, or usage details beyond 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?

States a specific verb (composes an institutional report/verdict) and resource (Base-native B20 token), and distinguishes from ERC-20 tools. However, it does not name any specific B20 sibling it aggregates, leaving sibling differentiation implicit rather than explicit.

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?

Implies an institutional due-diligence context and notes it is premium tier with no free tier, but offers no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives or exclusions relative to the many sibling B20 tools.

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