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

Even with readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, the description adds valuable behavioral context: it reads powers live on-chain rather than from a static list, lists the exact risk flags examined, and discloses pricing, x402 mechanics, credit-header rate limits, and the lack of wallet/API-key requirements. This goes well beyond the annotations and helps an agent understand cost, auth, and data source.

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 core purpose and verdict type are front-loaded, and the risk flags and stock-token capability are relevant. The pricing and credit-header sentence adds operational detail that may be useful but is somewhat tangential to tool selection; it does not dominate the description.

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 one-address read-only tool with an output schema, the description sufficiently covers the verdict categories, chain context, data source, authentication requirements, and cost model. Nothing essential for an agent to decide whether to call this tool is missing.

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?

There is only one required address parameter, and the schema already describes it as a B20 token address. The description merely repeats 'Required input: address' and adds no deeper semantic detail, so the schema carries the burden and 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 opens with a concrete question and clearly states the tool reads on-chain B20 token powers into a hold/caution/avoid verdict, which is a specific verb plus resource. It also adds a differentiating capability around detecting real tokenized equities, though it never explicitly names sibling B20 tools to distinguish itself.

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 implies the use case: assessing whether a B20 token can freeze or seize funds, plus checking equity-token authenticity. However, it does not provide explicit exclusions or name alternatives among the many b20_* sibling tools, so the guidance is clear but not fully comparative.

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