Crypto Due Diligence

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond that: the tool is pollable (pending until a reply arrives, then answered) and carries an explicit trust boundary warning that reply content is data, not instructions — a meaningful prompt-injection disclosure.

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?

Three tight sentences: purpose first, then polling behavior, then the trust caveat. Every sentence carries distinct information and nothing is padded.

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 single-parameter read tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, nothing an agent needs is missing. The polling semantics and the injection warning go beyond what structured fields provide, closing the remaining gaps an agent would otherwise have to discover by trial.

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?

Only one parameter exists and the schema already documents it fully (coverage 100%, including the ^fb_[0-9a-f]{32}$ pattern and the note that submit_feedback returned it), so the baseline of 3 applies. The description repeats the ticket-id linkage but adds no format or validation detail 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?

States a specific verb (Read) and resource (maintainers' reply to feedback), and ties it causally to the sibling tool submit_feedback via the ticket id. An agent can distinguish it from submit_feedback, screen_token, and wallet_identity without opening any schema.

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?

Clearly establishes the precondition: this is used after submit_feedback, with the ticket id that call returned. It does not state any exclusions or alternative ways to retrieve feedback status, but the usage context is unambiguous.

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

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavior beyond that: results are ranked best-match-first and the empty-input case enumerates every tool. It says nothing about result limits or pagination, which keeps it off a 5.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does and what it returns before the usage hint. Nothing is redundant given the description is the only place ranking and empty-input behavior are stated in prose.

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 discovery tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, this covers purpose, inputs, ranking, return fields and the no-argument case. An agent has everything needed to decide to call it and to interpret the results.

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% and the schema already explains that task, query and keyword are searched together and that omitting all lists everything. The description's 'task or keyword' phrasing actually omits 'query', so it adds no meaning beyond the schema and is marginally less complete than it.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search the tools on this server') and adds the matching mode ('by task or keyword in plain words'). It also names what comes back (name, title, one-line summary, input fields), so an agent knows exactly what this tool produces versus the sibling action tools.

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?

'Use it when you are not sure which tool here fits a task' gives a clear triggering condition, and 'With no words it lists every tool' covers the degenerate case. It does not state when *not* to use it or name an alternative, but no sibling here offers overlapping discovery functionality, so the gap is minor.

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

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

Annotations cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive) and open-world reads, and the description adds materially more: it discloses the exact signal vocabulary (red_flag, keep_signal, not_seen, unknown), the overall reading values, that sources are public-only, and that the tool will never assert a token is safe. That 'never says safe' caveat is real behavioral context an agent could not infer from annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with the trigger condition, then inputs, then outputs, then the disclaimer. Slightly dense with the parenthetical chain list and the user-quote examples, but every element carries real selection information.

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?

Covers trigger, inputs, optional-input conditions, return shape by category, and the safety disclaimer, and an output schema exists so return details need not be enumerated. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the chain enum is already enumerated in the schema, so the description's restatement of the chain list adds little. It does clarify the optional-field usage conditions, but that is also stated in the schema descriptions, so the baseline of 3 is right.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('screen a token'), and maps directly onto the user utterances that should trigger it ('is this a rug?', 'screen this coin'). It is clearly distinct from the wallet/feedback siblings.

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?

Gives explicit trigger conditions (user supplies a token address and asks about rug risk or the dev) and explains when to supply the optional github_url and deployer (when the listing names none or a different one). No alternative tool competes for this job, so nothing is left to inference.

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

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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: it returns a ticket id, feedback is explicitly not a chat and nothing in it is executed, and links/emails/phone numbers are stripped with nothing stored about the caller. That privacy and no-execution disclosure is genuinely useful given openWorldHint=true and readOnlyHint=false.

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?

Front-loads what the tool sends, then what to pass, then what it returns, in three dense sentences with no filler. Every clause carries actionable information.

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?

Covers purpose, the enumerated kinds, the optional tool/error inputs, the 1000-character bound, the return value (ticket id), and privacy handling. With an output schema present, nothing further is required for an agent to call it correctly.

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%, so the schema already documents all four parameters including the kind enum. The description restates the message length limit and the optionality of tool/error ('if you know them') but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 correct.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Send feedback, a bug report or a tool request to the maintainers of the tools on this server') and enumerates the concrete situations (missing tool, stale data, broken/wrong answer). It is clearly distinguishable from the read-side sibling get_feedback_reply.

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?

Gives clear triggering conditions for each kind (need_tool, need_data, bug, other) and tells the agent to include the tool name and error text when known. It does not explicitly name the alternative get_feedback_reply or state when NOT to use this tool, so it falls short of full routing guidance.

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

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

Annotations already establish the safe, idempotent, open-world read profile, so the description is free to add value — and it does, disclosing the bear/base/bull output structure, the supply-rule variants, confidence/warnings/unknowns, and that defaults are the most cautious. It also flags 'Not financial advice', a useful behavioral caveat. It does not discuss cost, latency, or data-source failure modes.

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 trigger condition is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the parameter list and return summary follow in a compact block. The enumerated output list is a little dense, but each clause (defaults, disclaimer) carries information, so there is no real padding.

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 complex 10-parameter valuation tool with rich optional inputs, the description covers invocation intent, default posture, output shape, and a disclaimer. Since an output schema exists it need not detail return values, though it partially duplicates them; nothing critical for correct invocation 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter, including enum options and defaults; baseline is 3. The description enumerates the optional inputs by name and adds the framing that 'defaults are the most cautious', but this largely restates schema content and adds little syntax or interpretation beyond it.

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 definition gives a specific verb and resource ('Value a token from its holder revenue') and reinforces it with concrete user phrasings ('what a token is worth', 'is HYPE cheap?'). It is clearly distinguishable from non-valuation siblings like submit_feedback, but it never names or contrasts with screen_token, the closest alternative, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 states the triggering intent explicitly ('Use this when the user asks what a token is worth... or for a fair value from revenue'), which is strong context for invocation. It offers no when-not guidance and does not route the agent to screen_token for screening-style queries, leaving the boundary between the two tools implicit.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context: results are self-declared by the owner, the ENS name must resolve back to the address, and it deliberately avoids linking wallets to private individuals. It does not discuss rate limits or ambiguity handling, but the added disclosure is substantial.

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?

Three tight sentences: trigger first, input format second, output and negative constraints last. Every sentence carries distinct information with 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?

Although an output schema exists, the description usefully previews the returns (ENS primary name, verifying Farcaster account) and clearly sets the boundary conditions of what this tool will and will not reveal. Nothing needed to call it correctly 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and there is a single required parameter, so the schema already documents format. The description's 'Pass address (0x or Solana)' restates what the schema says without adding syntax or edge-case guidance; 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Find a wallet's public name') and frames it as a lookup of whether an address has an associated public name. The sibling tools (get_feedback_reply, screen_token, submit_feedback) are unrelated, and the scope is unambiguous within one sentence.

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?

Explicitly gives the triggering user question ('asks whether a wallet address has a public name') plus concrete examples (token deployer, known trader's wallet), and names the exclusion: it cannot search by a person's name and never links a wallet to a private person.

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