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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, and the description adds substantial extra behavioral context: pricing per call, the x-credit-token header for unlimited calls, the 1-free-call-per-day option, the Base/x402 network context, and that no wallet or API key is required. This goes well beyond what annotations alone provide.

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 output, then covers pricing and auth details. The opening marketing-style phrase and the 'risk that changes after you buy' sentence add context but are somewhat wordy. Overall, it is appropriately sized for a tool with this many behavioral details, though a few words could be trimmed.

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?

The description covers the use case, required input, optional inputs, output verdicts, pricing, authentication, and network. There is a slight ambiguity about whether position size is required despite the schema saying only address is required, and what happens to P&L when entryPrice is omitted. Still, with an output schema and full parameter descriptions present, the description is largely complete.

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%, so the schema already documents address, size, and entryPrice. The description adds some high-level meaning by tying size and optional entry price to P&L and exit checks, but it mostly restates what the schema already says. This meets the baseline for fully documented parameters without adding much new semantic depth.

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 as a post-trade position health check and lists its concrete outputs: live price & P&L, exit-ability at position size, rug score, and a healthy/watch/exit_now verdict with reasons. It distinguishes itself from pre-trade or single-factor risk tools by emphasizing that it covers risk that changes after purchase.

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 signals when to use it: when the user is already holding a token and needs a post-trade stay-or-exit assessment. It contrasts itself with tools that 'skip' this check, but it does not explicitly name an alternative tool or give a direct when-not-to-use statement, so it falls just short of a 5.

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