arc_token_check

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the cost model ($0.006 per call over x402) and that the safety score comes from a 'real round trip' rather than a static heuristic, which is meaningful behavioral context. It stops short of describing failure modes (e.g., what happens if the token is not sellable or the payment is rejected) or any rate limits.

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?

A single dense sentence with parenthetical groupings that front-loads what the agent gets (sellability + owner powers) and ends with cost. Every clause carries information; the nested parentheticals are slightly heavy but not wasteful.

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 output schema and no annotations, the description does a reasonable job of describing the return surface (safety score, pool fee, hook, owner powers) and the paid-invocation model, which is what an agent needs to call it. It omits error behavior and does not clarify what the 0-100 score means at its boundaries.

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% and both parameters (token, payment) are already documented in the schema, including the x402 payload flow. The description's mention of x402 pricing does not add syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific resource (an Arc token) and enumerates exactly what is returned: a 0-100 sellability/safety score from a simulated round trip, plus pool fee, hook, and owner capabilities (mint, pause, blacklist, upgrade). It is clearly distinct from token_lookup, arc_contract_check, or arc_hook_risk, but it never names a sibling to route the agent explicitly.

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 phrase 'Everything about an Arc token in one call' implies this is the consolidated one-stop check, which implicitly positions it against narrower siblings. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or named alternative, so selection guidance is left to inference.

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