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 analysis components (static analysis, live simulation, LP-lock), output categories (clear/caution/avoid with reasons), and pricing tiers (free demo vs paid API). No side effects or auth requirements are mentioned, but the tool appears non-destructive.

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 concise, consisting of three focused sentences. It front-loads the core purpose and immediately provides key details about the analysis and pricing. No redundant or irrelevant 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?

Given the tool's complexity (multi-component analysis, cross-chain, pricing), the description covers essential aspects: what it does, how it works, output format, and limitations (shared daily budget). It lacks explicit return schema but gives enough for an agent to decide usage. Without output schema, the output hint 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?

The input schema has 2 parameters: 'address' (required, described as token contract/mint address) and 'chain' (enum with default 'base'). The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema; it mentions 'token contract / mint address' which corresponds to the schema's description. Schema coverage is 50% (only 'address' has a description), so 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's purpose: providing a go/no-go verdict on a token before trading via a composite rug score. It distinguishes from siblings like rug_check by detailing a multi-component analysis (static, simulation, LP-lock) and supporting both EVM and Solana. However, it could more explicitly differentiate from rug_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 usage before trading a token and mentions free vs paid access, but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use this tool. No exclusion criteria or alternative tools are named.

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