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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses only the commercial model (5 free trial calls per signed wallet). It says nothing about whether the wallet signature is required for the call, what the analysis covers, whether results are cached or time-sensitive, or what happens after the trial is exhausted.

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 purpose is front-loaded in a single well-formed sentence, but the second sentence is promotional trial-call copy (with an emoji) that consumes space without helping an agent decide or invoke correctly.

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 three-parameter, unannotated tool with no output schema, the description leaves the agent guessing about required inputs, the shape of the risk output, and invocation prerequisites. Only the chain set and pricing are conveyed; the core mechanics an agent needs are 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% for all three parameters. The description indirectly helps with `chain` by listing the seven supported networks, but `token` and `address` remain ambiguous — it is unclear whether `address` is the swapper's wallet, the token contract, or the router, and whether all three are mandatory given the schema marks none as required.

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 analysis type ("Pre-swap risk analysis") and enumerates the supported chains, so an agent knows the domain of the tool. It does not, however, distinguish itself from closely related siblings such as x402-token-risk-report, x402-token-rugcheck, or x402-dex-scanner, and 'risk analysis' is never concretized into what is actually assessed.

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?

Beyond the 'pre-swap' prefix implying it should be called before executing a swap, there is no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives, what inputs are required, or what conditions make it inappropriate. The only additional sentence is a pricing/trial note, not usage guidance.

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