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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so safety and idempotence are covered. The description adds pricing ($0.02/call, x402 on Base), auth options (x-credit-token header, 1 free call/day), and what the score represents (0-100 suspicion, verdict). These are operational details beyond what annotations provide.

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?

Front-loaded with a direct question and explanation, then details on what is reads and returns, and finally logistics. A bit long due to pricing and auth details, but every sentence works toward agent understanding.

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?

Complete for an agent: explains inputs, outputs (score + verdict), behavioral traits (read-only, idempotent), and payment/auth model. Since an output schema exists, the description needn't detail return structure further.

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% and the single parameter 'address' is already documented as 'Token contract address'. The description adds no further meaning about the parameter—e.g., valid address formats, chain specifics, or examples—so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Clear verb+resource: reads the deepest pool's 24h volume, buy/sell counts, liquidity and price move, and scores organic activity. This is unmistakably distinct from siblings like wash_trading (which likely does the same) but the hook question 'Is this trading volume real — or painted on by bots?' makes intent immediate.

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 implies usage by stating what it detects (wash-trading signatures) and requiring just an address. It doesn't explicitly say when to use this instead of wash_trading or dump_risk, nor does it exclude alternative tools, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide.

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