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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output format ('signal-first report') but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or mention any authentication/rate-limit requirements. For an analysis tool, the read-only nature is implied but not explicit, leaving a gap.

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 a single, information-dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose and lists specific risk factors, followed by the output type. There is zero redundancy or filler.

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 tool with a simple two-parameter schema that is fully described, the description tells the agent what the tool does, what chains it supports, and what kind of output to expect. Nothing crucial is missing for correct invocation.

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%, and both parameters (address, chain) are adequately described in the schema. The description adds only that it supports EVM or Solana, which is already reflected in the chain enum. No additional semantic value beyond the schema is provided.

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 specific resource (crypto token) and the exact analyses performed (honeypot/rug risk, ownership, liquidity, holder concentration). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by being the only one focused on token due-diligence.

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 clearly scopes usage to EVM or Solana tokens, which tells an agent when this tool applies. It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but the sibling names (critical_minerals, equity_signal, etc.) make the token-specific domain unambiguous, so the agent can infer when not to use it.

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