CONTOH keluaran skor keamanan token -- BUKAN hasil live dan bukan untuk token tertentu.
Skor live adalah layanan berbayar terpisah. Tool ini hanya mengembalikan contoh
keluaran yang sudah terdokumentasi pada tantangan pembayaran layanan itu, plus
harganya, supaya pembaca tahu bentuk jawabannya. Tidak ada dana yang dibelanjakan.
token: alamat token EVM (0x + 40 hex) -- hanya untuk konteks, tidak dinilai.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| token | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden and discloses important behavior: it is not live, not token-specific, returns already-documented example output, and spends no funds. It does not discuss permissions or rate limits, but for this example-only tool the main side-effect concern is addressed.
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 front-loaded with the key distinction that this is an example output, not live scoring. It is somewhat repetitive around 'not live' and 'example output,' but the repetition reinforces an important constraint and does not obscure the main point.
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 low complexity, one required parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is mostly complete. It explains the return content at a high level (example output plus price) and the main behavioral constraints, though it does not detail the exact response structure.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does: the token parameter is described as an EVM address in 0x + 40 hex format and explicitly noted as context only and not evaluated, which is essential semantic information beyond the bare schema.
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 behavior: it returns a documented example token-safety score output plus price, not a live result or token-specific assessment. It clearly distinguishes itself from the live paid scoring service, so an agent can identify the tool's purpose without opening the 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?
The description gives clear when-to-use context: use this to see the documented answer shape, not for live scoring or a specific token. It also states the alternative is a separate paid live service, though it does not explicitly route to any sibling tool such as info_pembayaran or verifikasi_pembayaran.
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.