Tanod

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so: price (USD 0.005), free quota (3 scans or 30 checks per IP per UTC day, shared pool), latency (under 1 s, p95 ~1 s, max ~4 s), 10-minute caching, and failure handling ('if the chain cannot be read the call fails and is not charged'). It also names the return fields and verdict taxonomy, which no structured field supplies.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose and trigger, then packs cost, limits, latency, and caveats into dense but useful clauses. Every sentence earns its place for an agent making a paid call, though the middle section is heavy and could be broken into shorter units.

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?

Though there is no output schema, the description enumerates the return shape (verdict, risk_score 0-100, plain-language reasons, proxy/token/verification details, block height) and discloses cost, quota, latency, and failure semantics. Nothing needed to decide whether and how to call it is missing.

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 description coverage is 100% and both parameters are already documented with titles, an enum for chain, and the 0x+40-hex pattern. The description's restatement of address format and chain values adds no meaning beyond the schema, so the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('pre-transaction risk check' on an address) with concrete scope: send, approve, or buy a token on Base or Ethereum. It is clearly not a source-code or package scanner, but it never explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling scan_contract_address, which an agent could easily confuse with this tool.

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?

Gives a crisp trigger ('call it right before you send a transaction to, approve, or buy a token') plus explicit exclusions: no honeypot simulation, no liquidity/oracle analysis, and a low verdict is not a clearance. No named alternative tools or routing rules to siblings are provided, so it stops short of a 5.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly: nothing is installed, imported or run; sandbox unpacking as text; timing expectations (2-4s registry, 5-15s monorepo, 60s hard limit); timeout results still charged; 503/Retry-After queue sharing; pricing tiers; free-tier pool; version pinning for cache. It even warns that evidence strings are untrusted quoted data and that 'safe-looking' means no rule matched, not harmless.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and invocation trigger, and nearly every sentence carries operative information (limits, caveats, pricing, caching). It is a dense single block rather than a structured list, which slightly hurts scannability for such a large volume of detail.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description compensates fully — it even documents the return shape (verdict, risk_score, one-line summary, file:line findings) and enumerates the finding categories. An agent has everything needed to decide whether to call it and how to interpret the result.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds cost and behavior implications of parameter choices that the schema does not: a whole GitHub repo (no //subdir) or an upload >5 MB costs more, //subdir avoids monorepo timeouts, and uploads are never sent to OSV.dev.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('static security scan of an AI-agent skill (SKILL.md bundle) or MCP server package') and names the exact use moment ('before installing or enabling one'). It is unmistakably distinct from the sibling contract-scanning tools, which operate on a different domain entirely.

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?

Explicit when: 'Call this before installing or enabling one.' It also supplies when-not/alternative guidance, e.g. scan a //subdir instead of a giant monorepo that would time out, and it defines the boundary of its own coverage (runtime-registered tools, downloaded code, nested archives, obfuscated logic).

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses refusal semantics (not_verified, refused inputs never charged), exact pricing tiers and the 15,000 nSLOC ceiling, free-tier quotas, latency bounds (3-30 s typical, 60 s cap), concurrency and queue behavior with 503/Retry-After, and the crucial caveat that findings are heuristic and an empty report is not proof of safety. This is unusually rich disclosure for a mutation-free scan tool.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the operation, inputs, and the not_verified routing rule come first, followed by price, quota, and timing details. Nearly every clause carries operational weight, though the pricing/latency block could be tightened without losing meaning.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description still names the return shape ('JSON report plus a Markdown rendering'). Combined with refusal handling, pricing, quotas, timing, and the audit-vs-heuristic caveat, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly and set expectations for the response.

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 description coverage is only 40%, and the three undocumented parameters are exactly the opaque ones: include_noisy, include_dependencies, include_informational. The description only refers to them collectively as 'optional include_* flags' without saying what each controls or why an agent would enable it. It does restate address and chain formats, but those are already in the schema, so the coverage gap is not compensated.

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 specific verb and resource ('static security scan of a deployed contract on Ethereum or Base, by address') and explicitly positions itself relative to siblings: same analysis as scan_contract_source, and check_contract_before_interaction for unverified contracts. An agent can distinguish it from all three siblings without opening a schema.

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 gives an explicit routing rule for the failure case ('Contracts without verified source are refused (not_verified) ... for those, use check_contract_before_interaction'), and the reference to scan_contract_source implies when this address-based variant is appropriate. It stops short of stating the inverse condition (use scan_contract_source when you already have source), so it is clear context rather than fully enumerated alternatives.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly: pricing tiers and refusal of oversized inputs, no-charge-on-refusal and no-charge-on-503 semantics, free-tier pool, per-scan timeout, queue depth, concurrency limits, Retry-After behavior, expected latency, and the false-positive limitation. This is unusually complete for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

A single dense paragraph, correctly front-loaded with purpose and inputs before cost and SLA details. The operational specifics (price, queue, timeout, refunds) mostly earn their place, though the packing makes it a heavy read and some latency detail could be trimmed.

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 7-parameter, zero-required tool with no output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: input shape and limits, parameter defaults, what the report contains (status, findings with severity/confidence/file:line/explanation/recommendation, plus Markdown), and the full cost/latency/error envelope.

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 description coverage is only 43%, so the description must compensate — and it does for the key parameters: the source vs standard_json trade-off, their size/file limits, filename, and that compiler_version defaults from the pragma. The three include_* flags are mentioned as a group but never individually explained, leaving that gap only partly closed.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — 'static security scan of Solidity source code' — and names the exact input forms accepted (single .sol file or solc standard-JSON). This is plainly distinguishable from the sibling tools, which operate on a contract address or an agent package rather than raw source.

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?

Gives clear usage context ('before you deploy, review or depend on a contract') and a strong misuse caveat ('Automated and heuristic, not an audit'). It does not, however, explicitly name when to reach for a sibling tool instead, nor state exclusions beyond the input-size refusals.

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