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

The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond the annotations: the result is deterministic, the score is a 0-100 probability-style output, it includes the exact driving signals, and higher values are riskier. It also discloses access requirements (no wallet or API key) and pricing, which is useful for agent invocation decisions.

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 compact and front-loaded, leading with the core purpose and score definition before moving to operational details. The pricing and access information is relevant for an agent deciding whether to call the tool, and no sentence is redundant.

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?

With a single parameter, full schema coverage, and an output schema present, the description covers the essential context: score range, direction of risk, component signals, required input, and access constraints. The tool is self-contained and an agent has enough information to invoke it correctly.

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?

The schema already fully describes the only parameter, address, as 'Token contract address', and the description simply repeats that an address is required. With 100% schema description coverage, the description adds no meaningful parameter semantics beyond what is already structured.

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 states a specific, measurable output: a deterministic 0-100 rug-probability score combining security flags, holder concentration, LP lock, and liquidity depth. It clearly identifies the resource (token address) and positions itself as a fast numeric gate for trading agents, which distinguishes it from deeper audit-style sibling tools.

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 gives clear usage context: it is a quick numeric risk gate for trading agents, with a required address input and higher scores meaning more risk. It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or state when not to use it, but the 'fast numeric gate' phrasing effectively implies a lightweight screening use case.

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