check_token_risk_batchSame as check_token_risk but for up to 25 mints in one call — N mints charged as N calls, same per-call economics as check_token_risk, no bulk discount. All-or-nothing: if the batch can't be fully covered by remaining quota/credit, the whole batch is rejected rather than partially processed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mints | Yes | 1-25 Solana token mint addresses |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and adds valuable behavioral context: batch charging (N mints as N calls), no bulk discount, and all-or-nothing quota/credit enforcement. It does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only, but 'check risk' implies a read operation and the pricing/all-or-nothing rules are useful disclosures.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value: batch size, pricing, and all-or-nothing behavior. No fluff.
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 batch tool, the description covers batch limit, pricing, and failure behavior. It relies on the sibling tool for deeper semantics, which is acceptable. No output schema exists, but the description doesn't need to explain return values since it is identical to check_token_risk.
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% with 'mints' described as '1-25 Solana token mint addresses', so the schema already explains the parameter. The description adds little beyond referencing check_token_risk for semantics and the batch limit, which is already in maxItems. Baseline 3 applies.
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 it is the batch version of check_token_risk for up to 25 mints in one call, with a specific verb ('check risk') and resource ('multiple Solana tokens'). It also distinguishes from sibling check_token_risk by emphasizing the batch capability.
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 explicitly says 'Same as check_token_risk' and specifies the batch context, which implies using this when checking multiple tokens. It mentions no bulk discount and all-or-nothing behavior, but does not explicitly name alternative tools or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool serves a distinct purpose: single-token risk check, batch risk check, and historical risk data. There is no overlap between them, and the descriptions make the differences crystal clear.
All tool names follow a clear snake_case verb_noun pattern: check_token_risk, check_token_risk_batch, get_token_risk_history. Consistent and predictable.
Three tools is a compact but reasonable set for a focused risk-data API. It feels slightly thin for a full feature set, but each tool is essential and well-scoped.
The API covers the core workflow: current risk, batch assessment, and historical data. Minor gaps like a top-risky-tokens list or detailed metadata endpoint exist, but the domain is well-served for its stated purpose.