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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states 'Read-only: this tool never places, modifies, or signs any trade,' which is a critical safety trait. It also discloses the algorithm (combining onchain DEX pools with a live reference quote) and the return format (session-aware verdict plus deviation percentage and supporting data), going beyond minimal requirements.

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 yet comprehensive, front-loading the core purpose before moving to method, usage guidance, and safety note. Every sentence serves a purpose: the first defines the check, the second explains the mechanism and output, the third gives explicit usage context, and the fourth declares read-only behavior. No filler 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?

The tool has a single parameter and no output schema, so the description must explain both input context and expected output. It does so by describing the verdict options ('fair' | 'caution' | 'unreliable' | 'no_liquidity' | 'unknown_symbol'), the deviation percentage, and the session-aware nature. It also covers when to use it, fulfilling the informational needs 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?

The schema already has 100% description coverage for the single parameter 'symbol' with examples. The tool description does not add new semantic meaning to the parameter itself; it explains the tool's purpose but not additional nuances like format constraints or edge cases. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since the parameter is fully documented in the schema.

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 very specific verb+resource: it checks whether a Robinhood Chain Stock Token's onchain trading price is consistent with its real-world reference stock price. It also details the method (liquidity-weighted average of DEX pools combined with Robinhood's live quote) and the output (a fairness verdict and deviation percentage), leaving no ambiguity about what the tool 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 says to call this BEFORE executing a trade of a Stock Token, whether via Robinhood's Trading MCP or directly against a DEX, to avoid trading at a price that has drifted from fair value. It also notes this is most likely outside regular US market hours. It does not provide explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but since there are no sibling tools, this is acceptable; a 4 reflects clear context without exclusions.

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