SCV - Smart Contract Verification (x402)

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

With no annotations, the description does carry useful behavioral context: the call is paid, the price, and the payment mechanism (x402). It stops short of explaining how payment is authorized/settled, what happens on payment failure, or whether the audit is read-only and side-effect free — significant gaps for a paid, wallet-touching operation.

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 sentence: purpose first, cost/payment mechanism in the parenthetical, then the distinctive detection capability. No filler, nothing to trim.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, cost, and the headline findings (active approvals, unlimited/unknown spenders) well enough to call correctly. The remaining gap is the payment flow and result shape, which no other structured field supplies.

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 both the wallet format (0x + 40 hex) and the network enum with its default are fully documented in the schema. The description adds nothing beyond 'of a wallet', 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: auditing active ERC-20 token approvals for a given wallet, plus unlimited/unknown spender detection. The scope is unambiguous, but it never contrasts itself with siblings like scv_scan or scv_wallet_risk, so differentiation is left to inference.

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 mention of a paid audit ($0.01 USDC via x402) implicitly tells the agent this is a cost-bearing call to reserve for approval-specific checks. However, there is no explicit 'use this when' guidance, no stated prerequisites (e.g. funded wallet), and no named alternative for other risk checks.

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 zero annotations the description carries the full burden, and it discloses the defining behavioral trait well: this is a paid call ($0.005 USDC via x402), so the agent knows each invocation incurs cost. It also states what comes back (risk scores, market data). It still omits failure/payment-error handling and rate-limit behavior, keeping 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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the resource ('Paid fresh-token feed') and packs cost, scope, and return info without wasted words. Slightly info-dense but every clause earns its place.

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 and no annotations exist, so the description must convey enough to call correctly. It names return content but gives no sense of the response shape (fields, ordering, pagination) or what a payment failure looks like, leaving gaps for a tool with none of the structured support.

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 all three params (count, network, min_liquidity) are documented in the schema, so baseline is 3. The description adds 'liquidity pairs' framing but no extra meaning about how count/network/min_liquidity interact beyond the 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 (fresh-token feed) with concrete scope ('newest tokens creating liquidity pairs') and additions ('instant risk scores', 'market data'). It is distinguishable from siblings like scv_honeypot or scv_scan, but it doesn't explicitly name what separates it from those risk-oriented siblings, leaving that to inference.

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 is only implied: 'fresh-token feed' suggests polling for new listings, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no named alternatives (e.g., scv_scan for deeper analysis). The agent must infer this is the discovery/monitoring entry point.

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 well: it discloses that the tool is paid ($0.005 USDC via x402), lists the exact checks performed, and names the possible verdict categories. It does not describe latency, payment failure behavior, or whether results are cached, but the critical behavioral traits are present.

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: it leads with the paid honeypot check, then the core question, then the specific checks, then the verdict scale. Every clause earns its place, with no filler or repetition.

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 two-parameter query tool with no output schema, the description supplies the essential context: the payment requirement, the checks performed, and the verdict categories. It does not explain the verdict thresholds or response shape, but the core completeness is solid.

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 schema already documents both parameters, including the EVM address format and the network enum with its default. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific action and resource: a paid honeypot check for an EVM token, with the core question 'can this token be sold, or is it a trap?' It also enumerates the checks performed and the possible verdicts, making its purpose distinct from siblings like scv_scan or scv_wallet_risk.

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 makes clear when to use it: to determine whether a token is sellable or a trap, with on-chain checks for blacklist, taxes, mint/pause, and proxy behavior. It does not explicitly compare against alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is strong enough for an agent to infer.

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 burden and does well: it discloses that the call is paid ($0.005 USDC via x402) and what comes back. It does not state whether the call is read-only/no side effects, nor rate limits or failure behavior, so it stops short of fully covering the mutation/safety dimension.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then price, then return shape. Every clause carries information an agent needs to decide and call.

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 3-param, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description covers purpose, cost/payment path, and return fields, which is most of what an agent needs; only safety profile (read-only vs state-changing) and error/limit behavior are unstated.

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% (address format, network enum and default, verify default), so the schema already does the parameter work. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond naming the network-agnostic scope, so 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+resource: a rug-pull risk scan of an EVM contract, and enumerates the returned signals (score 0-100, verdict, mint/pause/blacklist/tax/proxy/ownership flags). This clearly separates it from siblings like scv_honeypot and scv_wallet_risk.

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 'rug-pull risk scan of an EVM contract' implies usage, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or routing to scv_honeypot / scv_wallet_risk / scv_approvals. The agent must infer the boundary between this and its siblings from names alone.

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, but it does add real behavioral context: this is a paid call costing $0.01 USDC via x402 and it names the underlying data sources (ScamSniffer+MEW). It omits failure behavior, rate limits, and what the result contains, but the pricing disclosure is meaningful value no structured field provides.

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 front-loaded sentence that packs purpose, cost, data sources, and scope with zero filler. Nothing can be trimmed without losing information.

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 paid tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers cost and sources but never describes the shape of the risk result (score, verdict, flags), leaving the agent unable to anticipate the response. Adequate but with a clear gap given the absence of structured output documentation.

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 schema already documents wallet format, network enum, and the optional token relation. The description only echoes the optional token relation, which is baseline-appropriate given the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('wallet risk check') and enumerates what it covers — drainer/phishing blacklists, on-chain profile, optional token relation. The 'wallet' focus distinguishes it from siblings like scv_honeypot and scv_approvals, though it never explicitly says how it differs from scv_scan.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of the sibling tools (scv_scan, scv_honeypot) that an agent might confuse it with. The only usage signal is the implied 'check a wallet for risk' from the purpose statement.

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