Bir creator/deployer-adresinin geçmiş-itibarını değerlendir (önceki-launch'ları kazandı-mı/rug-mu). Döner: 0-100 itibar-skoru + tier(güvenilir/riskli/ilk-kez) + geçmiş(launch/win/rug sayısı). Veri-kanıtlı: prior-winner 2.8x-lift, seri-dud kaçınılmalı.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| creator | Yes | creator/deployer cüzdan-adresi |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations the description carries the behavioral burden. It openly states that the tool returns a 0-100 reputation score, a tier, and historical launch/win/rug counts, and even explains the data-backed signal (prior-winner 2.8x lift). It does not discuss rate limits or failure modes, but for a read-only reputation lookup this is reasonably transparent.
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 compact sentences lead with the action, then output, then the data-backed rationale. There is no filler or redundant restatement.
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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the input type and the return values sufficiently for an agent to call it and interpret the result. It does not specify address format or edge-case behavior, but those are not critical given the schema's 100% parameter coverage.
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 already fully documents the single creator parameter as a wallet address at 100% coverage, so the description adds little new syntax. It adds context by calling it a creator/deployer address and linking it to past launches, which is useful but not necessary.
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: 'değerlendir' a creator/deployer address's past reputation, and enumerates concrete outputs (0-100 score, tier, launch/win/rug counts). This makes it clearly distinct from the sibling check_coin, which by name targets a coin rather than an address.
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 'seri-dud kaçınılmalı' note implies a vetting use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement and check_coin is never mentioned as an alternative. The intended decision boundary between checking a coin and checking its deployer is left to inference.
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.
check_coin evaluates a token's risk profile, while check_deployer evaluates the deploying address's reputation. The two tools have clearly distinct targets and purposes, leaving no ambiguity about which to select.
Both tools follow the exact same check_<noun> pattern, making the naming predictable and consistent. The verb-noun convention is clean and immediately signals the tool's purpose.
With only 2 tools, the server sits at the borderline 'thin' level. Each tool covers a substantial domain, but the set feels minimal for what could be a richer filtering workflow.
The pair covers the core risk-evaluation workflow: assess a coin and assess its creator. Minor gaps exist, such as no dedicated tool for detailed holder or liquidity breakdown, but the primary filtering purpose is well served.