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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations: live computation from Base, $0.03 per-call pricing, the x-credit-token header option, free daily calls, and no wallet or API key requirement. This is valuable operational transparency with no contradiction.

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 dense but not bloated. The core purpose and output are front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by use case, required input, and pricing/auth details. Every sentence contributes actionable information, though the pricing/header details could be slightly more separated for skimming.

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 with a full output schema and safety-revealing annotations, the description gives everything needed: input semantics, use case, live computation, cost/credits, and auth requirements. It even addresses common blockers by noting 'No wallet or API key required.' The output schema covers return values, so nothing essential 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?

The schema already fully documents the only parameter as 'Token contract address' with 100% coverage. The description adds little beyond restating that address is required, which matches the baseline for high schema 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?

Clearly identifies the operation as producing a pre-trade risk score for Base tokens, including concrete outputs like risk score and flags. It distinguishes itself from generic token tools by emphasizing pre-trade vetting, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives such as rug_score or ai_contract_risk.

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 states the intended use case: 'Built for trading bots and agents that vet tokens before buying.' It also clarifies operational context like pricing, credit header, and free calls, but doesn't provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance or name alternative siblings for similar risk checks.

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