Trust Check

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: the check covers specific risk categories, requires passing `from` to detect look-alikes, returns a verdict with reasons, and exposes a cost model (5 free checks/day, then $0.002 via x402). This is strong supplemental disclosure.

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 three tightly packed sentences with no filler. The core usage directive is front-loaded ('Before sending crypto on Base, check the destination'), followed by concrete risk categories, parameter guidance, and pricing. 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?

For a tool with no output schema, the description covers key operational details: what is checked, how to enable the poisoning check, what the return looks like, and the pricing model. It is slightly light on describing the exact verdict format, but the annotation set already covers read-only and open-world behavior, making the description adequate for selecting and invoking the tool.

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 baseline is 3. The description additionally clarifies the real-world purpose of the `from` parameter by linking it to address poisoning ('pass `from` = your wallet'), which enriches the schema description. It does not mention `known` explicitly, but the schema already documents it, so no significant gap exists.

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 verb ('check'), the resource ('the destination' / address safety), and the specific scope (Base) in the first sentence. It enumerates distinct threat categories (scam blacklists, address poisoning, token contracts, burn addresses, never-used addresses) and explicitly says it returns a verdict with reasons, making the purpose unambiguous and distinct from the sibling check_token_safety.

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 an explicit when-to-use directive: 'Before sending crypto on Base, check the destination.' It also explains how to use the `from` parameter for the address-poisoning check. However, it does not explicitly contrast this tool with the sibling check_token_safety or state when not to use it, so a small guidance gap remains.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds genuine value on top: it discloses that the tool simulates a buy/sell rather than executing one, exposes the cost model and daily quota, and states the verdict output format. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Three dense sentences with zero filler: the first front-loads the user-facing intent and the full list of checks, the second states the return format, and the third states cost and payment method. 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?

For a single-parameter, read-only check tool this is nearly complete: the schema documents the input, the description documents the checks performed, the verdict categories, and the pricing, while annotations carry the safety profile. Minor gaps — no failure/error behavior (e.g., invalid or non-token contract) and no explicit sibling routing — keep it from a 5.

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% — the single 'address' parameter already has a pattern and a description ('Token contract address on Base'). The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 for high coverage 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?

Description uses a specific verb ('check') and resource (token on Base) and enumerates exactly what is evaluated: honeypot/hidden-tax simulation, owner powers, whale concentration, liquidity lock, scam lists. The '(Base)' qualifier in the title and the token-specific checks clearly distinguish it from the sibling check_address_safety, which targets addresses rather than tokens.

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?

'Before buying a token on Base, check it' gives a clear trigger condition for when to call the tool, and the 5-free-checks/day then $0.003 quota guides volume. However, it never names alternatives or exclusion conditions (e.g., when check_address_safety would be the right choice instead), so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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