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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive, and the description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: pricing per call, prepaid header for unlimited calls, daily free call, and no wallet/API key requirement. This meaningfully informs the agent about cost and authentication behavior.

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 tightly structured with the core purpose front-loaded, followed by output details, use case, and pricing. Every sentence adds distinct information and there is no redundant filler.

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 zero-parameter read-only tool with an output schema and rich annotations, the description is complete: it covers scope, output contents, limits, cost model, and authentication requirements. An agent has everything needed to decide whether and how to call this tool.

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 tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to clarify. Baseline 4 is appropriate since the description does not need to compensate for any parameter documentation gaps.

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 uses a specific verb ('Fetches') and names a concrete resource (DexScreener boosts feed filtered to Base), with a clear outcome: up to 15 trending tokens including address, description, boost amount, and link. It clearly distinguishes the tool from the many token-related siblings by focusing on 'boosted/promoted' tokens on Base.

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 states the tool is 'Great for discovery bots,' giving a clear use case. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion conditions, but the Base boosts feed context strongly implies when it applies versus other token discovery tools.

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