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 trial quota and that calls are tied to a 'signed wallet', which is a genuine behavioral detail, but it says nothing about whether the tool is read-only, what it returns, latency, or how it behaves once the free calls are 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?

Two short fragments with the purpose front-loaded before the trial note; no wasted sentences. Slightly clipped — 'Pre-swap risk analysis' reads as a label rather than a full sentence, but structure is efficient.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description must explain the safety profile and ideally the result shape. Instead it supplies a quota line, leaving an agent unable to tell what risk dimensions are evaluated, which chain is assumed, or what a caller should expect back.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the schema descriptions are generic placeholders ('Token to process', 'Address to process') and the tool description adds nothing. It never resolves whether 'address' means the trader's wallet, the token contract, or the pool, which is a meaningful ambiguity for a swap-risk tool.

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 a recognizable purpose — pre-swap risk analysis — pairing a verb-like activity with the swap-safety resource. However, it doesn't clarify what the analysis actually covers (liquidity, honeypot, taxes, contract risk) and does not distinguish it from crowded siblings such as x402-token-risk-report, x402-token-rugcheck, or x402-token-security.

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 only usage-adjacent text is '🆓 5 free trial calls per signed wallet', which is commercial/pricing information, not when-to-use guidance. There is no statement of prerequisites, when this beats a token-security or contract-scan sibling, or any exclusion.

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