FabTally Safe

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full weight. It discloses the paid x402 mechanism, the fact that the tool never broadcasts transactions, and that it returns calldata for self-execution. It also explains the 402 challenge behavior when payment is omitted, which is important operational context.

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 4 sentences, starts with the cost, and packs purpose, features, execution model, and payment flow efficiently. Each sentence adds information without redundancy, though the payment behavior is repeated from the schema.

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 conveys what the tool returns: revoke calldata or a 402 challenge. It covers the payment requirement, security model, and free alternative, making it sufficient for a user to invoke the tool correctly. Some output structure details are missing but not critical.

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 already provides complete descriptions for all three parameters (100% coverage). The description primarily reinforces the payment parameter by mentioning x_payment and USDC on Base, but does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema's existing details.

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 scans wallet ERC-20/721 approvals, ranks exposure, flags risky spenders, and returns revoke calldata. It distinguishes itself from the free sibling `approvals_free` and other tools like `simulate` and `token_safety` by its specific focus on approvals and payment model.

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 tells users this is the paid version, noting payment is $0.01 and that without payment it returns a challenge, while `approvals_free` is the free teaser. It also clarifies that users execute the calldata themselves, which sets expectations. However, it does not explicitly contrast with other scan tools like `simulate` or `token_safety` beyond the tool name.

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 behavioral transparency burden. It discloses that the tool is free, returns real results, and requires no wallet. However, it does not specify read-only nature, rate limits, or potential errors, which would be valuable for a free 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 three concise sentences, front-loaded with 'FREE' and followed by the core functionality. It is tightly structured with no redundant 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?

The description gives a high-level summary of the output (counts and top-3 riskiest spenders) but lacks detail on the result structure or any additional behavior. Given the absence of an output schema, more detail would be helpful, but the tool is simple enough that this may suffice.

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 provides 100% coverage of both parameters with clear descriptions for 'address' and 'chain'. The description only references them as {address, chain} placeholders, adding no new semantics 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 returns approval counts and top-3 riskiest spenders for a given address and chain. It distinguishes from the sibling 'approvals' tool by explicitly noting the free subset ('counts + top-3') and the full version ('EVERY approval ranked + revoke calldata').

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 when to use this free tool vs the full 'approvals' tool by stating 'Upgrade to approvals for EVERY approval ranked + revoke calldata.' It also notes 'no wallet' as a key differentiator. However, it does not explicitly mention other sibling tools or provide explicit exclusions.

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 payment details ('PAID $0.01 (x402, USDC on Base)'), that it is a pure offline decode ('never signs/broadcasts'), and the payment flow ('Without payment returns the x402 challenge; pass x_payment'). This is rich behavioral disclosure beyond what annotations would have provided.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: cost, function, risk flags, context, safety, payment behavior, free teaser. It is front-loaded with the paid alert and structurally efficient, with no fluff or 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's complexity and lack of output schema, the description explains the output (plain English with risk flags) and the payment behavior. It covers the main use case and safety properties, making it complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly. The mention of the free teaser also provides a fallback option.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the x_payment flow (forwarded as X-PAYMENT header, omitted to get challenge) and that chain is optional and derived from domain.chainId. It also elaborates on the typed_data types supported, enriching the parameter semantics.

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 decodes off-chain EIP-712 typed-data signatures (Permit/Permit2/Seaport/generic) into plain English with specific risk flags. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly mentioning the free teaser decode_signature_free, and its scope differs from approvals/simulate/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 clear context for when to use the tool: when you need to decode a signature and assess risk before signing. It names the free alternative and notes that signatures are a top wallet-drainer vector, implying safety-critical use. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with all sibling tools, but the context is sufficient.

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 the transparency burden. It discloses that the tool returns a real result without a wallet and highlights its limited scope compared to the full version, though it doesn't explicitly state read-only behavior or error conditions.

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 three short sentences, front-loaded with 'FREE', each sentence adds distinct information about price, output, and upgrade path.

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 simple tool with no output schema, the description covers the core outputs, nature of result, and relationship to sibling tools. It lacks specifics on return format or error handling, but the upgrade path and scope make it reasonably 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema documents both typed_data and chain. The description mentions typed_data by name but adds no extra parameter meaning 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 decodes EIP-712 typed_data and returns type, plain-English summary, and risk level. It distinguishes itself from decode_signature by noting the full decode is an upgrade.

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 frames itself as the free, lighter version and directs users to decode_signature for full field-level decode with risk flags and spender screening. Also states 'Real result, no wallet' implying it's for quick checks without wallet connection.

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 payment mechanism ($0.02, x402, USDC on Base), the 402 challenge flow, the technical method (public-RPC eth_call, static decode), the risk flags it analyzes, and the keyless limitation (no full fork trace) that is honestly stated in the response. This is unusually transparent about behavior and limitations.

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 four sentences, dense with information but no filler. It front-loads the price and purpose, then explains mechanics and limitations. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is scannable with clear separations between pricing, function, limitation, and usage note.

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 complexity (payment flow, keyless limitation, no output schema or annotations), the description covers the essential context: payment behavior, analysis scope, limitation, and how to get the real result. It does not describe the exact response format beyond mentioning risk flags and the limitation statement, which is a minor gap. Overall, it is quite complete for the tool's complexity.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds context about how the parameters are used (e.g., the template {chain, from?, to, data, value?}) and clarifies the payment parameter (x_payment forwarded as X-PAYMENT header), but the schema already describes each parameter's meaning well. The description adds marginal value 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Keyless pre-sign analysis' with explicit components (eth_call revert check, calldata decode, risk flags). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by being the PAID version, referencing simulate_free as the free teaser. The purpose is unambiguous and specific.

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 on when to use: it's a paid pre-sign analysis tool, requires x_payment to get real results, and returns a challenge without payment. It mentions simulate_free as a free alternative, giving partial alternative guidance. However, it does not explicitly discuss when to choose this over approvals or token_safety siblings, so it lacks full exclusionary guidance.

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 adds useful behavioral context: 'Real result, no wallet' indicates simulation without requiring a wallet connection and implies no on-chain transaction is sent. It also discloses the output scope and the upgrade path. However, it does not explicitly state read-only safety, potential rate limits, or error behavior, leaving some gaps.

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 only two sentences, highly efficient, and front-loaded with 'FREE.' It packs all key information (output fields, no-wallet caveat, upgrade path) without any redundant words or repetition of schema details. Every phrase 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 the lack of an output schema, the description effectively enumerates the returned data (method, revert flag, risk level, predicted effect types) and the limitations versus the paid version. It also hints at the transaction context ('Real result, no wallet'). This makes the tool's behavior reasonably complete for selection and invocation, though it doesn't describe error cases or output formatting.

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% description coverage for all 5 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The tool description itself does not elaborate on parameter usage, but the schema already provides sufficient meaning for each field (e.g., 'to', 'data', 'chain', 'from', 'value'). Thus, the description adds no extra parameter semantics 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's function: it simulates a transaction and returns method, revert flag, risk level, and predicted effect types. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling 'simulate' tool by noting it's the free tier with a limited output set, and mentions 'Real result, no wallet,' making the purpose 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 provides clear context on when to use this tool: it is the free version that returns core simulation results, and it explicitly points to the paid 'simulate' tool for full deltas and all risk flags. While it doesn't explicitly exclude other sibling tools like approvals or token_safety, the contrast with 'simulate' offers actionable guidance for choosing between the simulation variants.

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 of behavioral disclosure. It covers payment behavior (paid $0.02 via x402, challenge response without payment), data sources (GoPlus, honeypot.is), output format (0-100 risk score with reasons), and the non-advisory nature. It also explains x_payment's role. Missing are edge-case behaviors like error handling, but critical behaviors are 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?

The description is dense but well-structured, front-loading the payment aspect ('PAID $0.02') and then explaining functionality and output. Each sentence earns its place, covering payment, data sources, output, disclaimer, and free alternative without redundancy. Slightly long, but justified for a paid tool with these nuances.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description explains the output's nature (0-100 score with reasons) and lists covered checks (honeypot, tax, ownership, etc.). It covers payment mechanics, data sources, and the free alternative. The supported chains are in the schema, so the description's 'multi-chain' claim is sufficient. Missing details like error scenarios, but overall the context is adequate for correct 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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage for all parameters, describing chain, address, and x_payment in detail. The tool description reinforces the x_payment flow ('pass x_payment to settle') but does not add substantial meaning beyond the schema's explicit explanation. It provides context about the payment currency (USDC on Base) but does not enrich parameter semantics significantly.

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 function: a multi-chain token honeypot/rug check aggregating GoPlus and honeypot.is data into a normalized 0-100 risk score with explainable reasons. It explicitly names the free alternative token_safety_free, distinguishing this paid version. The disclaimer 'Descriptive facts only — NOT a buy/sell signal' further clarifies its purpose.

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 explains the payment flow: 'Without payment returns the x402 challenge; pass x_payment to settle.' It also points to the free teaser token_safety_free, implying a lighter alternative. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over the free sibling, though the paid nature and naming make this inferable.

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 must fully disclose behavior. It states 'FREE' and 'Real result, no wallet,' which are useful behavioral facts. However, it doesn't disclose error handling, rate limits, or the exact structure of the score band and flags, leaving some gaps.

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 sentences, concise and front-loaded with 'FREE' followed by the core function and an upgrade note. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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 simple 2-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the main output (score band and flags) and mentions the real result. It lacks a detailed response shape but is reasonably complete given the tool's simplicity and the schema-rich parameters.

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 provides full descriptions for both parameters (chain and address), and the description merely echoes {address, chain} without adding new meaning. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description adds no additional parameter semantics.

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 explicitly states the tool provides a 'score band + top-line honeypot/tax/privilege flags' for a token, using specific categories. It clearly differentiates from the sibling token_safety by noting the free version lacks the full numeric breakdown.

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 directly mentions 'Upgrade to token_safety for the full numeric breakdown,' providing an explicit alternative. It implies usage for quick, free checks without a wallet, but doesn't enumerate explicit exclusions beyond the upgrade path.

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