DYOE Token Intelligence ($0.05)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful operational context beyond them: the per-call cost ($0.05 USDC on Base) and payment mechanism (x402), plus the fact that two distinct data categories are returned.

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 core sentence is front-loaded and efficient, but the trailing fragment 'Input: ?symbol=' appears to be leftover API-doc syntax and adds no value given the schema. The price is stated twice (description and title), a minor redundancy.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must convey returns, and it does name the data categories (price, market data, scam/rug-risk). Cost and payment rail are also disclosed. A brief note on return shape or any rate limits would make it complete.

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% with a single required 'symbol' parameter whose format is documented in the schema. The description's 'Input: ?symbol=' restates the parameter without adding format or constraint detail, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Specific verb ('Look up') plus resource and scope: price/market data and a scam/rug-risk read, framed as a combined call. An agent can distinguish it from plain market-data siblings by the bundled trust/safety read. However, no sibling is named, so it doesn't fully differentiate from dyoe_market or dyoe_crypto.

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?

Usage is implied by the described scope ('market data and counterparty trust in one call'), but there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not, and no routing to dyoe_market/dyoe_crypto for pure price lookups.

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