Can you sell it back

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

The description discloses the core behavior: performs a small buy then immediate sell via on-chain quotes, flags honeypots on ~nothing returns, and reports round-trip loss beyond normal fees. Annotations already carry read-only/idempotent/non-desstructive guarantees, and the description adds product-level behavior. The phrase 'real small buy' is slightly ambiguous, but 'on-chain quotes' plus readOnlyHint resolve it as a simulation, not an actual transaction.

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?

Four sentences, all substantive: the single signal, the method, the output behavior, the usage timing, and the exclusions. It is front-loaded with 'ONE signal: sellability' and contains no filler.

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 definition fully covers what signal is produced, how it is produced, when to use it, and which sibling tools handle related concerns. An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not required. For a 2-param read-only tool, nothing essential is missing.

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 describes address explicitly; chain has no prose description, but its enum and default make the allowed values self-evident. The description does not explain parameters, but the remaining gap is minor because chain values are clear from the schema and address is fully specified. This is acceptable but does not add much beyond 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 specific verb and resource: it runs a simulated buy/sell to produce ONE sellability signal and flags honeypots. It explicitly differentiates itself from sibling tools by saying it does NOT measure token_depth or price_corroboration, making its purpose unmistakable.

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?

It gives clear usage context: 'Use right before entering a low-reputation token.' It also names what it does not cover and points to token_report as the combined alternative, giving agents both when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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