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

Annotations already cover the read-only/idempotent/non-destructive profile, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: what is returned (health factor now, projected at reopen, liquidation price, paused reserves, dividends), plus auth/cost mechanics (x402 at $0.04/call, prepaid x-credit-token header, 1 free call/day, no API key). The 'Not financial advice' caveat further sets expectations.

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 is front-loaded in the first clause and the rest is information-dense operational context. Minor waste exists in the redundant restatement of the wallet requirement ('Pass wallet=' and 'Required input: wallet') and the run-on first sentence, keeping it just short of 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 one-parameter tool this covers everything an agent needs: the scenario, the required input, the pricing/auth path, and even the return contents despite an output schema existing. Nothing material is missing for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 100% for the single wallet parameter, so the schema already documents it; the description's 'Pass wallet=' and 'Required input: wallet' add only usage syntax, no new meaning. 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 computed result (health factor / liquidation risk for tokenized-stock loans) with named protocols (Aave V4, Morpho on Base) and the exact oracle-freeze scenario it addresses. This clearly separates it from generic siblings like morpho_health or position_health, which lack the tokenized-stock reopen framing.

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 Friday 20:00–Sunday 20:00 ET oracle-freeze window gives a concrete condition under which the tool is relevant, so the agent knows when this matters. However, it never explicitly names an alternative (e.g. morpho_health) or states when NOT to use it, so the routing comparison is left to inference.

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