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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It states 'Informational only, not financial advice,' which is helpful context, and implies read-only behavior. However, it doesn't disclose specifics like whether the tool accesses live market data or is cached, or what happens if a token is unknown. Given the absence of annotations, the description provides some but not rich behavioral context.

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 concise, front-loads the core capability ('Get Truedge's overall risk posture'), and adds example use questions plus a disclaimer in just three sentences. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundancy or fluff.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and full schema coverage. The description covers what the tool returns (risk tier, contract verdict, red flags) and when to use it, which is sufficient for basic invocation. It lacks an output schema, so the description could ideally mention what the response looks like, but the described components are enough for a single-param informational tool.

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 schema already documents the 'symbol' parameter with an example. The description adds the meaning of the parameter in context (token symbol, used for risk checks) but does not go beyond the schema's example to clarify accepted formats (e.g., case sensitivity, whether symbols like 'BTC' work). Baseline 3 is appropriate with full schema coverage.

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 clearly states the tool's function: retrieving Truedge's overall risk posture for a crypto token, including specific components (pump-and-dump / risk-watch tier, contract-safety verdict, red flags). It distinguishes itself from siblings like check_address and check_contract_safety by specifying token-level risk posture, not address or contract details.

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 explicitly states when to use it: for questions like 'is <token> risky / a scam / safe to buy?', which guides appropriate invocation. It does not explicitly say when not to use it or name alternatives, but the usage context is clear enough given sibling tool names like check_contract_safety and check_address imply alternatives for contract or address-specific checks.

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