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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses the $0.01 per-call cost, USDC on Base (eip155:8453), the x402 payment location (params._meta['x402/payment']), and the exact HTTP endpoint. It omits failure/refund behavior and rate limits, so not a 5.

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 and the bundling value are front-loaded in the first two sentences, followed by pricing and endpoint logistics. The inline promotion of /price and /sample is dense but serves tool-selection, so there is little pure waste.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, pricing, payment mechanism, and endpoint well. However it leaves the 'tokens' argument undefined and only loosely sketches the returned content (due diligence, reference price, exit cost) without enough detail 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 0% for the single 'tokens' parameter, and the description never defines its format for /report (count, delimiter, required vs optional) — the only 'tokens' mention ('up to 10 tokens') describes the sibling /price endpoint, which could actively mislead. The description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 names a specific resource (Base token due diligence) and makes the composite nature explicit: '/report bundles due diligence, cross-venue reference price and position exit cost in ONE $0.01 call.' That directly maps to the sibling tools basedue__due, basedue__price, and basedue__exit, letting an agent infer this is the all-in-one variant.

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?

It gives real alternatives: /price 'now takes up to 10 tokens per $0.01 call for bulk screening' and a free /sample on every endpoint, which implicitly tells the agent when to pick this tool versus the bulk-pricing route. It doesn't state explicit exclusions or prerequisites beyond payment, so it stops 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.