x402-solana

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full weight. It discloses the cost ($0.10, x402 payment on Base mainnet) and implies it's lightweight ('one cheap call'), but does not detail data freshness, rate limits, or error conditions. Adequate but not rich.

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 purpose and includes pricing, return structure, and a pointer to a sibling tool. It is slightly verbose but every sentence adds value, and it avoids redundancy.

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 tool has one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does, what it returns (best rank + per-category-keyword rank), cost, and when to use the more detailed sibling. It is complete for its simplicity.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with a clear description of the 'seller' parameter. The tool description adds minor context ('x402 seller') but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema. Baseline 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?

The description clearly states the tool checks an x402 seller's rank by keyword-relevance in CDP Bazaar discovery, distinguishing it from 'raw settled-volume rank' and naming a sibling tool for deeper analysis. The verb 'check' and resource 'rank' are specific and unambiguous.

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 establishes this as a 'quick check' and 'frequent pulse' for monitoring, and explicitly points to the full /agent/visibility-audit 'when the rank slips.' It does not exhaustively list when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide.

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 provided, so description fully bears the burden. It discloses paid call ($1 USDC), signed output, and delta computation. Could mention idempotency or side effects, but generally 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?

Single sentence is dense but clear and informative. Minor fragmentation would improve readability, but no wasted words.

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 output schema, the description lists key outputs (relevance rank, metadata score, benchmarks, fixes, delta). Lacks format details but sufficient for an agent to understand what the tool returns.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The description enriches by clarifying 'seller' accepts wallet or URL and 'snapshot' is a signed JSON from prior audit, adding value beyond 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 specifies an audit of x402 seller discoverability including relevance rank, metadata quality, settle activity, benchmarks, fixes, and delta. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like agent_rank_check.

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 implies use for sellers not being found and wanting to climb, and mentions price and signing. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tools but provides good context.

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 provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the verdict categories (GO/CAUTION/NO-GO), signed offline-verifiable receipt, pricing ($0.05 per call via x402 payment, USDC on Base mainnet), and supported chains (EVM and Solana). No destructive behavior, but cost is transparently stated.

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 two sentences long and front-loaded with the verdict purpose. It is slightly dense but all information is relevant and earns its place. Could be trimmed slightly but remains well-structured.

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 tool's complexity (fusing three tools into one), the description covers purpose, usage guidelines, behavioral transparency (cost, receipt, chains), and parameter semantics adequately. No output schema exists, but the description mentions the verdict and receipt, making it complete for an agent to decide on invocation.

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% with descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds context: it mentions wallet is optional counterparty screen, chain defaults to base, and token can be EVM contract or Solana mint. This reinforces and slightly extends the schema information, justifying a score above baseline 3.

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 provides a GO/CAUTION/NO-GO pre-trade verdict by fusing token safety, wallet sanctions, and market signals. It explicitly says it replaces three separate calls (token-safety + wallet-screen + signal), distinguishing it from siblings like crypto_token_safety and sanctions_screen.

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 frames the use case with 'Should I buy this token now?' and explicitly states it replaces three separate calls, guiding the agent to use this tool instead of multiple calls. It does not explicitly mention when not to use, but the fusion guidance provides enough context.

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 provided. Description discloses key behaviors: returns safety score, honeypot/tax, top holders, liquidity/FDV, contract control, AI narrative. Mentions data source depth. Not exhaustive on rate limits or auth, but adequate for a read-only dossier 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?

Description is a single paragraph but front-loads key features and provides complete info. Slightly verbose but every sentence adds value. Could be structured with bullets, but still clear.

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 output schema, the description adequately lists output components. Complexity is high but description covers most expected data. Missing details like formatting or error cases, but sufficient for an AI agent to understand capabilities.

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% with descriptions for both 'chain' (lists options, default base) and 'token' (format hints). Description does not add meaning beyond schema; it simply restates chain support. Baseline score 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Full degen token dossier in one call' and lists specific components like safety score, honeypot/tax, top holders, etc. It distinguishes from sibling tools by noting it's the 'premium tier above a plain safety check' and mentions supported chains.

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?

Explicitly tells when to use: 'before aping' and compares to plain safety check. Includes pricing ($0.10 per call, x402 payment) and chain support (EVM, Solana). No alternative sibling names but clear context for decision.

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 discloses key behavioral traits: it aggregates multiple sources (GoPlus, Honeypot.is, DexScreener), returns a 0-100 score and verdict, and requires payment ($0.05 per call via x402 on Base mainnet). This adds valuable context beyond the basic function, though it omits details on error handling or rate limits.

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 extremely concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core question 'is this token a honeypot or a rug pull?' The first sentence covers purpose and outcome, the second adds bundling and pricing. No wasted words.

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 tool's simplicity (2 params, no output schema), the description adequately covers purpose, inputs, output (score+verdict), payment, and data sources. It does not explain what the score numbers specifically mean, but the buy/avoid verdict compensates. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 the description does not need to add much. It repeats the token contract address format and default chain, but provides no new semantics beyond the schema. The example and mention of EVM chains offer slight context, but not enough to raise the score above baseline.

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 its purpose as a token safety check before buying, specifically checking for honeypots or rug pulls, and providing a 0-100 risk score with a buy/avoid verdict. It distinguishes itself from siblings by mentioning it bundles three lookups (GoPlus, Honeypot.is, DexScreener) and focuses on EVM chains, differentiating it from Solana-specific tools.

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 identifies the tool as a pre-purchase safety check and explicitly says 'One call replaces three lookups', guiding users to use it instead of separate calls. It limits scope to EVM chains via the chain parameter default and mentions pricing and payment, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to similar tools like crypto_pre_trade_verdict.

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 full burden. It discloses the real-time nature, worldwide coverage, and importantly the pricing and payment method ($0.01 per call, USDC on Base mainnet), which are critical behavioral constraints.

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 efficient sentences, no fluff. First sentence states purpose and output, second adds pricing. Front-loaded and concise.

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 lists returned fields but does not specify the structure or format. Given no output schema, a bit more detail on return format would improve completeness, but it's still adequate for a simple lookup.

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%, and the description merely repeats what the schema already provides (the pattern and example). No additional parameter semantics are added 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 clearly states the tool looks up LEI numbers and returns specific company information, distinguishing it from sibling tools like sanctions_screen or crypto tools which serve different domains.

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 usage is implied by the tool's specificity, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives, nor when not to use it.

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. It discloses the pay-per-call cost ($0.05), payment method (x402, USDC on Base), and the specific data returned. This provides transparency beyond the schema, though it does not mention idempotency or safety.

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 sentences: the first defines purpose and output, the second states cost and payment details. No extraneous information, every sentence 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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately explains the return value structure (outcome, probability, volume, liquidity, resolution). It also covers cost, payment network, and input format, providing a complete picture for the agent.

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 has 100% coverage with one parameter described. The description adds substantial value by providing concrete examples ('2654605' or 'will-it-rain-tomorrow') and clarifying what a slug is, which the schema alone does not convey.

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 specifies a clear verb-resource combination ('give live prediction market odds') and lists specific data fields (probability, volume, liquidity, resolution status). It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools, which focus on crypto tokens and sanctions, making it uniquely identifiable.

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 provides clear context for use (inputting a market id or slug) but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives. Sibling tools are unrelated, so the lack of exclusion is acceptable, but some guidance would improve clarity.

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?

The description discloses that results are non-binary (similarity score + context fields like EU reference, type, programme) and includes pricing ($0.05 per call, USDC on Base). Without annotations, it covers important behavioral traits. It does not discuss rate limits or auth needs, but pricing and output format are key.

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 sentences: first defines core action and output, second covers pricing. Front-loaded, no wasted words.

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 covers purpose, output format, pricing, and data source. It does not explain return structure for empty results or error handling, but for a screening tool with full schema, this is adequate.

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 parameters. The description adds no extra parameter guidance beyond the overall behavior, which is fine; baseline 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?

The description clearly states it screens names against the EU sanctions list for AML checks, with specific verb 'Screen' and resource 'official EU consolidated sanctions list'. It is distinct from sibling tools which are unrelated (crypto, agents, etc.).

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 explicitly states the use case (AML and watchlist checks) and specifies the data source (EU FISMA list). While it does not discuss when not to use or alternatives, the sibling tools are all different domains, so context is clear.

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 bears the full burden. It discloses the tool's output as a BUY-SAFE/CAUTION/AVOID verdict, the four modules, and importantly the cost ($0.05 per call) with payment details (x402, USDC on Base mainnet). This adds significant behavioral context beyond a simple function description.

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 mostly concise and front-loaded with the key value proposition. There is minor redundancy (e.g., 'All-in-one Solana pre-trade decision in ONE call' and 'Full token due-diligence in one call'), but it remains efficient.

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 tool has one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains the four modules and the verdict categories. It also notes cost. The output structure is not detailed, but for a pre-trade decision tool, the description is sufficiently complete.

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?

There is only one parameter (mint) with schema description 'SPL token mint address (base58) to evaluate before buying'. Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add extra semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 it is an all-in-one pre-trade decision tool for Solana tokens, fusing four modules. It distinguishes itself from siblings like solana_token_safety by offering broader due diligence including liquidity, deployer history, and holder concentration.

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 implies use for pre-trade due diligence with the question 'Should I buy or avoid this Solana token?' and mentions it's built for a trading/sniping agent's risk-review pipeline. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternative tools.

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 fully discloses behavioral traits: it lists static checks (mint/freeze authority, holder concentration) and behavioral analysis (liquidity, churn, dump, velocity), plus the blue-chip guard and pricing. This is comprehensive for a read-only analysis 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?

The description is verbose with marketing language and pricing details, which could be condensed. The key functional information is present but not front-loaded efficiently.

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 output schema, it describes the verdict and score range, the types of checks, and includes cost/payment info. It adequately prepares the agent for using the tool, though the return structure could be more precise.

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%, but the description adds value by explaining the 'deep' parameter as 'Deeper behavioral + holder analysis (more RPC calls)', providing context beyond the schema's boolean type and description.

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 it's for Solana SPL token safety, rug check, and scam detection before trading, with verdicts and a score. It emphasizes behavioral analysis beyond static checks and includes a blue-chip false-positive guard, differentiating it from siblings like crypto_token_safety or solana_pre_trade.

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 explicitly says 'before trading' and contrasts with static checkers, implying use for pre-trade Solana token assessment. However, it doesn't specify when not to use or provide alternatives like crypto_token_safety for non-Solana tokens.

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