cabal-hunter

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure and does so exceptionally. It explains that scans are live on-chain traces rather than cached data, count only real wallets (excluded LP/locked supply), source supply from getTokenSupply, and report degraded data instead of returning falsely confident results. It also discloses response time variations, cost models, and payment options, giving a comprehensive picture of tool 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 lengthy but well-structured with numbered layers and clear formatting, making it easy to scan. It front-loads the core purpose and then systematically explains each risk layer, return values, cost, and performance. A small portion covering pricing and payment methods is tangential to tool invocation, but the overall structure earns its length.

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?

Given the complexity of a multi-factor security audit tool with no output schema or annotations, the description provides an unusually complete picture. It details each checkpoint (holder concentration, bundles, coordinated dumps, honeypots, dev track record, funding clusters), return fields (risk, cabal_score, top_holder_pct, evidence_txs, degraded, etc.), and operational notes like timeout recommendations. This equips an agent to use the tool correctly and interpret 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?

The input schema already describes both parameters with 100% coverage: mintAddress clearly defined as the token's mint address with length constraints, and pairCreatedAt specified as an optional DexScreener timestamp that speeds up analysis. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, which aligns with the baseline score for 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 opens with a clear, specific statement of purpose: 'Pre-trade safety check for any Solana token mint: is a buyer about to be someone's exit liquidity?' It names the resource (Solana token mint), the action (pre-trade safety check), and the evaluative outcome. The detailed layer breakdown further distinguishes the tool's unique multi-factor risk assessment approach.

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 clearly indicates when to use this tool: before a trade to assess whether a buyer is about to be exit liquidity. It provides a concrete use case and mentions the tool returns a risk score so the agent can apply its own risk tolerance. It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternatives, but with no sibling tools available, the context is sufficient.

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