Token pre-trade check in ONE call for an ERC-20 contract

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

The description goes beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint: false, openWorldHint: true) by disclosing that the tool is paid ('Paid (price from the live 402 quote)'), that it returns an evidence hash and lists its sources, and that it provides 'Signals only, not investment advice.' This adds meaningful behavioral context about cost, output structure, and limitations, which is valuable given the annotations provide only the bare safety/scope hints. It does not contradict the annotations.

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—three sentences—with the most critical information (payment, one-call comprehensive check) front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place: the first states cost and scope, the second gives usage guidance, and the third describes the output and its reliability framing. No fluff or redundant text.

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 that performs multiple checks, the description covers what it does, when to use it, the paid nature, and the output format (sources, evidence hash). There is no output schema, so the description adequately hints at the result structure. It could elaborate on what 'contract verification' entails or note that results may vary by chain, but these are minor gaps given the tool's complexity and the schema already handles parameters. Overall, it provides enough for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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%, so the schema already fully documents each parameter (contract, chain, payment_signature). The description does not add significant new meaning beyond what the schema provides—it mentions the paid quote nature, but that is already in the payment_signature description. Per the calibration, a baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting, and the description adds marginal but non-essential context.

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 verb (pre-trade check) and resource (ERC-20 contract), and enumerates the distinct checks it performs: metadata, price, holder concentration, contract verification, and sanctions list. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like genesis402_screen_sanctions (which likely focuses only on sanctions) and genesis402_wallet_brief (wallet-focused). The phrase 'in ONE call' further underscores its consolidated nature, leaving no ambiguity about what it does.

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: 'before buying, listing or accepting an unfamiliar token.' It also implies a reason—comprehensive pre-trade due diligence in one call. While it does not explicitly name alternatives or say when NOT to use it (e.g., for a quick sanctions-only check), the usage context is clear and actionable for an agent deciding between this and more specialized siblings.

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