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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/safe, and the description adds rich context beyond them: paid DexScreener promotions are listed separately and never mixed in, pricing is $0.01/call via x402 with a prepaid x-credit-token header for unlimited calls and 1 free call/day, and no API key is required. These are exactly the operational details an agent needs before invoking.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by scope, caveat, then pricing. Every sentence carries distinct information an agent needs (ranking basis, promotion separation, safety caveat, cost model) with no 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?

Output schema exists and the description still summarizes the returned fields; combined with the usage trigger, safety caveat, and payment model, nothing needed to call this no-arg tool correctly 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 tool takes zero parameters, so the schema has nothing to describe and the description correctly adds no parameter-level noise. Baseline for a 0-param tool is 4.

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 (trending tokens on Base DEXes), the scope (up to 15 Base pools ranked by live DEX activity via GeckoTerminal), and the returned fields. It distinguishes itself from siblings like crypto_trending and new_tokens by being explicitly Base-DEX-pool-activity ranked.

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?

"Use when an agent hunts what is moving on Base" gives explicit when-to-use context, and it routes the agent to token-risk for vetting rather than alternatives like token_momentum or activity_trend. It lacks explicit when-not or a named alternative sibling, so it falls short of a 5.

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