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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose the analysis dimensions and the risk-score output, implying a read-only analytical scan. Still, it does not explicitly state that it never writes/transacts, how data is sourced, or what limitations the risk score has.

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 front-loaded sentence: it opens with the core purpose and then packs the key checks and output scale into a compact, readable list. Every phrase carries meaning and there is no filler.

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?

The description gives enough high-level information to know the tool exists and what kind of output to expect, but without an output schema or annotations it under-specifies the exact return fields and the risk score's calculation basis. It also does not disambiguate from other risk-related sibling tools.

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?

The schema fully describes the single 'mint' parameter as a Base58 Solana token mint address, so the description does not need to repeat it. The description adds no constraint or nuance beyond the schema, which matches the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 clearly states the tool performs a Solana token rug check and enumerates concrete checks: mint/freeze authority, holder concentration, liquidity depth, and a 0-100 composite risk score. It is not a tautology and gives a specific resource and outcome, but it does not distinguish itself from nearby siblings like token_risk_metrics or token_intel.

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 'rug check' phrasing implies the tool is meant to assess whether a Solana token may be a rug pull, which provides implicit usage context. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over competing siblings or when it should not be used.

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