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

Annotations already establish read-only, non-destructive, idempotent behavior, and the description adds valuable context on top: paid call cost, x402 on Base, credit-header requirement, free daily call, no wallet/API key needed, and riskiest-first sorting. This goes well beyond the annotation coverage and helps an agent understand real-world invocation requirements.

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 mostly tight and front-loaded with the core purpose, and every major piece of invocation context appears. It loses a point for the redundancy between 'Rug-score up to 10 tokens in one call' and 'Screen up to 10 Base tokens in a single paid call', which says nearly the same thing twice.

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 one well-documented parameter, an output schema, and rich annotations, the description needs only to cover invocation specifics, which it does: pricing, credit mechanism, network, authentication, and output ordering. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to select and call this tool 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?

Schema coverage for the single 'addresses' parameter is 100%, so the schema already documents the comma-separated format and the 10-token limit. The description only restates that addresses are required and does not add materially new parameter meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific action and resource: 'Rug-score up to 10 tokens in one call,' and clearly states what the output contains. It also distinguishes itself from per-token siblings by emphasizing batching and the absence of per-token cost, making the tool's niche obvious.

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 explicitly says it is 'Built for agents triaging a watchlist or portfolio without paying per token,' giving clear when-to-use context. It does not name an alternative for single-token scans or state when-not-to-use, but the batching framing effectively communicates the intended scenario.

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