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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), and the description goes further by disclosing the full access model: $0.04 per call over x402 on Base, an x-credit-token prepaid header for unlimited calls, one free call/day per tool, and no API key requirement. Payment/auth mechanics and rate-limit terms are exactly the behavioral context an agent cannot infer from 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 purpose and outputs are front-loaded before the pricing/access terms, so the most decision-relevant information comes first. One clause ('The risk that changes after you buy is exactly the risk holders miss') is stylistic filler that doesn't help selection or invocation, keeping it short of 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 3-parameter read tool with full schema coverage, an output schema, and rich annotations, the description supplies the remaining context an agent needs: the decision verdict it produces, the required input, and the payment/auth path. Nothing needed to call or interpret it 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%, so the schema already documents address, size, and entryPrice. The description restates the required input and notes that entryPrice optionally enables P&L, which mirrors the schema's own wording rather than adding syntax, format, or units beyond it. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb-and-resource combination (post-trade position health check on a token) and enumerates exactly what it returns: live price, P&L, exitability at the given size, and rug score rolled into a healthy/watch/exit_now verdict. The framing 'the post-trade check everything else skips' distinguishes it from siblings like rug_score and exit_liquidity without needing to open any schema.

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?

Clearly establishes the triggering context ('You're IN the token — should you stay in?'), i.e. use this after acquiring a position to decide hold vs. exit. It does not name specific alternatives to prefer in other situations, so it gives clear context but no explicit when-not or sibling routing.

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