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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds meaningful operational context: exact pricing, the x402/Base transport, the optional x-credit-token header for unlimited calls, the free daily call, and that no wallet or API key is needed. This goes well beyond what annotations specify.

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 well front-loaded with the core question and the substantive output details, followed by usage rationale and access/cost info. It is not bloated, but the opening question partly restates the 'Surfaces...' sentence, and 'Required input: address' duplicates schema information, so it does not quite earn a 5.

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 single-parameter, read-only tool with a full output schema and clear annotations, the description is complete: it explains what data is surfaced, why it matters, what input is required, cost, access mechanism, and authentication requirements. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this tool correctly 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%: the only parameter, 'address', is already documented as 'Token contract address'. The description merely repeats 'Required input: address' and adds no new semantic detail such as network restrictions, address format, or token types. Per the rubric, baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the parameter documentation.

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 identifies the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Surfaces') and a specific resource: LP holders, locked/burned vs pullable LP supply, lockers, and unlock dates. It differentiates from a simplistic one-line 'LP locked: yes/no' check, but it does not explicitly name any sibling tool, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 implies when to use the tool by stating 'Unlocked liquidity is the clearest rug setup' and explaining it reveals detail that a one-line LP locked check hides. However, it never explicitly states when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no sibling tools are mentioned.

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