brief

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 states the output format and the analytics-only nature, which suggests a read-only operation. It does not explicitly mention side effects, authentication, or rate limits, but for a simple query tool, this is acceptable.

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 two concise sentences that front-load the purpose and output, then add a valuable caveat about the tool's scope. There is no redundancy or wasted wording.

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 simple 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what it does, what it returns, and its limitations. It explains the input types and the output components without omitting critical information an agent would need.

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%, so both parameters are already described in the input schema. The description adds little beyond the schema, only reiterating that 'q' can be an address, token, or URL and noting the output. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.

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's purpose: providing a risk brief for an EVM address, token, or URL. It lists specific output components (score, band, flags, summary, sources) and specifies the API source. This distinguishes it from siblings like whois or fetch, which serve different data-retrieval purposes.

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 provides context by noting it is 'analytics-only' and not clearance or financial advice, which implies caution about interpretation. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this tool over siblings or any exclusions. The usage scenario is implied rather than stated.

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