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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It details what the tool evaluates (number/recency of deployments, wallet age, scam/abuse reputation) and gives interpretation guidance (UNPROVEN vs red flag). It stops short of specifying return format or failure behavior.

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 longer than average but front-loaded with the core purpose and every sentence adds context (use case, interpretation, address sourcing). Emphasis via caps is slightly noisy but not wasteful.

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 2-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description provides enough context to select and invoke: purpose, use case, parameter provenance, and result interpretation. It doesn't describe exact output shape, but the described fields imply the report contents.

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 already documents both parameters (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description adds valuable semantics for the address parameter: it must be a 0x creator/deployer address and can be sourced from token_security's creator_address or the contract.

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?

Description clearly identifies the tool as due-diligence on a deployer wallet covering deployment history, wallet age, and reputation. It distinguishes from token-focused tools by targeting the wallet/deployer, though it does not explicitly contrast with the similarly-named deployer_reputation sibling.

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 frames when to use: 'THE key check for who is behind this project / is this team legit', especially on launchpad mints. It also instructs where to obtain the required address (token_security's creator_address or the contract). It lacks explicit exclusions or comparison to alternatives.

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