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

Annotations already establish read-only/idempotent/no-destructive, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: the scoring inputs (security flags, holder concentration, LP lock, liquidity depth), the inclusion of driving signals and non-answering sources, the crucial fallback rule ('a missing feed reads unknown, never low'), and the x402 pricing/free-tier/auth model.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose and the 'one number' framing before elaborating on components, fallback semantics, and pricing. The heavy em-dash chaining makes it dense/run-on, but virtually every clause (payment model, missing-feed behavior) carries actionable information.

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, output-schema-backed tool, the description supplies everything an agent needs: input, output scale/direction, signal composition, missing-data semantics, and access/pricing constraints. Nothing material is left to inference.

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 single 'address' parameter is already documented in the schema. The description restates it as 'Required input: address' but adds no syntax, format, or validation detail beyond what the schema provides, matching the baseline-3 rule for high coverage.

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+resource ('deterministic 0-100 rug-pull probability') for a concrete input (Base token) and defines the exact output unit and direction ('Higher = riskier'). An agent can readily distinguish this composite gate from point tools like rug_monitor or token_risk without opening a 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?

Explicitly frames the use case ('Use when a trading agent wants one number for will this Base token rug?'), which is clear context. It does not name alternative siblings (rug_monitor, token_risk, pre_trade_gate) or state when-not-to-use, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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