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

Annotations are completely absent, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds one useful behavioral fact — the 5-free-trial-calls quota per registered wallet — but it never states that the operation is a read-only analysis, what the output looks like, whether a payment is required after the trial, or whether chain/network context is needed to analyze the token. The free-trial mention is the only genuine behavioral disclosure.

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 description is compact — 'Swap Safety: Pre-swap risk analysis' front-loads the core purpose, followed by a short, standalone free-trial note. There is no filler or repetition, and the most decision-relevant information appears first. It earns its place at two clauses, though the brevity comes at the cost of substance.

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?

Even though the schema is simple (one optional parameter), there is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must carry the full load. It fails to state what the call returns (risk score? verdict? detailed report?), how it differs from the cluster of sibling token-safety tools, the post-trial payment model, or what input format is expected. Against a sibling list containing many near-overlapping risk tools, this is not enough for an agent to select and invoke it confidently.

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 100% (the sole 'token' parameter is documented as 'Token to process'), so the baseline is 3. The description adds marginal context by framing the token as the subject of a pre-swap safety check, but it doesn't clarify whether 'token' means an address, contract, or symbol, nor whether chain information is implied. It fails to add meaning meaningfully beyond what the schema already provides.

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 states 'Pre-swap risk analysis,' which identifies the function at a high level and matches the tool name 'Swap Safety.' However, it is a noun phrase with no explicit verb, doesn't specify which risk dimensions are assessed (honeypot, liquidity, rug pull, price impact), and doesn't differentiate it from overlapping siblings like x402-token-rugcheck or x402-token-risk-report. An agent can tell it is safety/risk-related but not exactly what analysis it performs or what verdict it returns.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided — the description never names alternatives or conditions that should route an agent to this tool over x402-token-security, x402-token-risk-report, or x402-new-token-check. The free-trial note ('5 free trial calls per registered wallet') hints at an entitlement constraint but says nothing about prerequisites, selection context, or when another tool would be more appropriate.

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