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

With annotations already covering the read-only/idempotent safety profile, the description adds substantial extra context: the exact valuation and dump mechanics, what is excluded from holder value (pools, lending, bridges, vaults, lockers, burn; exchanges reported apart), the verdict vocabulary (resilient vs exit_trap), and full cost/auth behavior ($0.04/call over x402, prepaid x-credit-token header for unlimited calls, 1 free call/day, no API key). Cost and rate-limit disclosure is exactly the kind of detail annotations cannot carry.

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 opening question is a good front-loaded hook and the pricing details are pushed to the end. But the middle is a dense run-on of em-dash clauses, and since an output schema exists, spelling out the 'verdict resilient → exit_trap' return vocabulary is partly redundant. It is around 120 words for a one-parameter tool, some of which does not earn its place.

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-param tool with 100% schema coverage and an output schema, the description is close to complete: it covers methodology, exclusions, the stablecoin edge case, and payment terms. Nothing critical is missing, though it never states the supported chain scope beyond 'Base pools' or how whales below the top-3 threshold are handled.

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 a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Token contract address'), so the schema already carries the semantics. The description only restates 'Required input: address' and adds no syntax, chain, or format detail beyond the schema, making 3 the correct baseline.

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 concrete framing question followed by a specific method: it values the largest live holders' bags (GoPlus % × Base supply × price) and simulates dumping them through every Base pool via constant-product, returning a resilient → exit_trap verdict. That is a clear verb+resource+output. It does not, however, name or differentiate itself from close siblings like exit_liquidity, sellability, price_impact, or rug_score, so an agent must infer the distinction from methodology alone.

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?

It gives one explicit when-not: 'USD stablecoins: not_applicable (see stablecoin-peg)', which correctly routes that case to a sibling. Beyond that there is no positive when-to-use guidance or comparison against the near-identical exit_liquidity tool, leaving the agent to infer the boundary. Usage is implied by the methodology rather than stated as selection criteria.

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