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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive; the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that by stating it is free, requires no wallet, lists prices in USDC, and explains answer validity. It does not disclose return formatting, but the safety and cost behavior are well covered.

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 three sentences with no wasted words. The most important information ('Free, no wallet') is front-loaded, followed by the tool's core function and a practical recommendation.

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?

Given zero parameters, a simple catalog purpose, and annotations that already establish safety, the description covers everything an agent needs to invoke and interpret the tool correctly. The pricing, validity, and pre-purchase guidance round out the intended use.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter ambiguity to resolve. The baseline of 4 applies because there are no inputs to explain.

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 ('Lists') and resource ('individual on-chain facts about a Base contract'), and clearly frames the tool as a free catalog with price and validity information. It is unmistakably distinct from the sibling buying tools such as buy_contract_data and buy_flash_audit, and from flash_audit_terms.

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 description gives explicit placement: 'Read this before paying', making it clear this is a pre-purchase reference rather than a purchase action. It does not name sibling alternatives explicitly or state when not to use it, but the context strongly implies the intended workflow.

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