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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden well by disclosing the graded checks performed (ERC20, honeypot selectors, liquidity, market) and the separate ungraded adminPowers profile with raw evidence. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior, permissions, rate limits, or failure modes, which keeps it below 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?

The description is a single dense sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose and then enumerates outputs. It is efficient, though the long parenthetical list of checks and admin powers is somewhat packed and could be marginally easier to scan.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain return values, and it does: 0-100 score, A-F grade, one-line summary, graded checks with raw evidence, and a separate ungraded adminPowers profile. For a one-parameter analysis tool with no annotations, this gives the agent enough context to invoke and interpret 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 coverage is 100%, so the single address parameter is already fully documented as a Base chain 8453 ERC20 contract address. The description reinforces that it expects a Base ERC20 address but adds no syntax or format details beyond the schema, matching the baseline 3 for high-coverage schemas.

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 resource and operation: a rug-risk verdict for a Base ERC20 contract address. It also lists the exact output artifacts (score, grade, summary, graded checks, adminPowers profile), so the agent knows precisely what the tool produces.

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?

Usage context is clear: it is for Base ERC20 token risk assessment and explicitly says 'No LLM', implying a deterministic analysis. There are no sibling tools to distinguish from, but the description does not explicitly state when not to use it or any prerequisites such as whether the address must be a verified contract.

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