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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: it costs $0.75 per call, supports a prepaid x-credit-token header, includes a free daily call, requires no wallet/API key, and runs the full due-diligence battery in one call. No contradiction with 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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then delivers pricing, auth, and free-tier information. It is longer than strictly necessary due to marketing phrases like 'premium flagship' and 'can't get in one call anywhere else', but these do not obscure the operational details.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description does not need to detail return fields. It covers the required input, the scope of the report, the synthetic verdict, pricing, authorization, and free-tier access, leaving no critical information missing for an agent to decide and call the 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 is 100%: address is described as the token contract address and required, size is described as position size USD for the exit check. The description only reiterates that address is required and contextualizes it as a Base token, adding no new parameter format or constraint 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?

The description clearly states a specific action and resource: produce an institutional-grade full due-diligence report on a Base token. It distinguishes itself from other tools by emphasizing that it is the full-battery, one-call flagship that synthesizes a comprehensive verdict, unlike narrower sibling tools.

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 makes the use case clear: use this when you want a comprehensive, synthesized institutional verdict on a token rather than a single-dimension check. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the 'full battery' and 'premium flagship' framing gives strong contextual guidance.

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