100pro-token-risk

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc.), the description discloses critical behavior: the $0.05 USDC payment requirement, x402 v2 billing, the HTTP 402 challenge flow, and the instruction to retry with payment in `_meta`. It also specifies the comma-separated token limit and the markdown report format. This substantially enriches what annotations alone provide.

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 compact and front-loaded: purpose, report contents, batching limit, and payment mechanics each earn their place. No filler or redundancy exists, and the critical pricing/auth detail is placed after the core purpose without bloating the opening.

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 read-only tool with two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description is complete. It explains the output format, the payment mechanism, failure mode (HTTP 402), retry instructions, and supporting chains. No missing information is needed for an agent to call and interpret the tool 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 input schema already documents both parameters, including enum values for chain and the token format. The description mostly repeats this information (chain list, 0x address, Solana mint, comma-separated) without adding new parameter-level semantics beyond a brief clarification of token type. 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?

The description opens with 'Pre-trade risk screen for an EVM token contract or a Solana SPL mint', naming a specific verb, resource, and supported chains. It then enumerates exactly what the report contains, making the tool's purpose unmistakable even without sibling tools to distinguish it from.

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 phrase 'Pre-trade risk screen' provides clear context for when this tool should be used, and the detailed report contents signal its suitability for pre-trade due diligence. There are no sibling tools or explicit exclusions, but the description gives enough contextual guidance for an agent to select it appropriately.

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