Meme token composite signal

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

No annotations are provided, so the description rightly includes cost information (up to $0.02 USDC per call) and payment method (x402 on Base). It does not disclose other behavioral traits such as rate limits or data freshness, but the cost disclosure adds significant transparency for a paid tool.

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 highly concise with two sentences. The first sentence front-loads the core function and components, and the second sentence provides critical cost information. No extraneous content.

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 description covers the tool's purpose, components, and cost well. However, there is no output schema, and the description does not detail the return format (e.g., BUY/HOLD/AVOID labels or confidence scores), leaving a minor gap for a composite signal 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?

Both parameters (token and chain) are fully described in the input schema (100% coverage). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as format hints or examples. Baseline score of 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?

The description clearly states the tool provides a composite BUY/HOLD/AVOID signal for a meme token, combining safety, momentum, and holder concentration. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like token_holders, token_momentum, and token_rugcheck, which provide individual signals.

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 indicates that this tool replaces several calls and costs more than a single check, implying it is suitable when multiple signals are needed. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives.

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