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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses a rate limit (5 free calls per signed wallet) but says nothing about the underlying model (e.g., the Hamada-style relationship between levered/unlevered beta), whether outputs are deterministic, or any failure conditions for invalid inputs.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence states the operation and its inputs with no filler. The trailing pricing clause is off-topic for tool selection but brief enough not to obstruct the purpose.

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 calculation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and four completely undocumented parameters, the description should supply input conventions and expected output shape. Neither is present, leaving the agent unable to call it correctly with confidence.

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 4 string parameters, and the description only restates the field names ('beta, tax rate, debt and equity inputs'). It omits the critical ambiguity of whether taxRate is a decimal or percentage and whether debt/equity are absolute amounts or a ratio, which materially changes the result.

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 verb ('Computes') and resource ('unlevered beta') and enumerates the inputs, so the operation is unambiguous. However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling x402-beta-levered, which is the natural confusion point for a finance agent choosing between the two.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of when the levered counterpart is preferred, and no prerequisites. The only extra clause is a promotional note about free trial calls per signed wallet, which is billing information rather than usage guidance.

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