token-risk

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the cost ($0.02 USDC), the network (Base), and the high-level output (APY, TVL, security read). However, it does not state whether this is a read-only operation, what the security read actually returns, or any failure modes 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 two concise sentences. It front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence and adds cost/chain context in the second. No unnecessary 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?

For a single-parameter tool, the description gives a reasonable overview of what the tool does and key details like cost and network. However, missing parameter semantics and explicit usage comparison with siblings make it incomplete, especially with no output schema.

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 one parameter 'pool' with no description, and the tool description never mentions it. With 0% schema description coverage and no additional explanation, the agent has no idea what format 'pool' should take (address, symbol, ID, etc.). This is a critical gap.

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 DeFi pool intelligence including live APY, TVL, and an on-chain security read. The 'pre-deposit' context clarifies its purpose. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like defi_pool_deep or defi_pool_top, so it's not fully distinctive.

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 phrase 'pre-deposit intelligence' implies when to use it (before investing into a pool), but there's no explicit guidance on when to choose this over siblings or when not to use it. No alternatives are mentioned.

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 full burden. It adds useful behavioral context: the tool performs two specific analysis types (30d yield stability and contract control) and costs $0.06 USDC on Base, implying a paid transaction. However, it does not disclose return format, prerequisite conditions, pagination, or error behavior, leaving significant 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 concise, using a single sentence plus a cost note. It front-loads the core concept ('Deep DeFi pool intelligence') and lists the key features. The terse notation is slightly informal but does not waste words; every element contributes to the overall message.

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 'deep' analysis tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It mentions analysis dimensions and cost but omits the expected input format, output content, how to specify the pool, and any usage prerequisites. The one-parameter schema plus this description leaves substantial ambiguity.

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 one string parameter 'pool' with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The tool description provides no explanation of the expected input format (e.g., pool ID, address, symbol, or chain). This is a critical gap because the description fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 deep DeFi pool intelligence, specifically 30d yield stability and contract-control analysis of underlying tokens. The 'deep' qualifier and these analysis components distinguish it from sibling tools like defi_pool or defi_pool_top, though it lacks a direct verb like 'get' or 'analyze'.

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 a deep analysis use case through the word 'deep' and detailed analytical components, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as defi_pool or token_risk_deep. The cost note hints at a premium service but no exclusions or selection criteria are provided.

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 full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool computes yield discounted for volatility, incentive-share, TVL, outliers, and impermanent loss, and it mentions the cost of $0.02 USDC on Base. This is meaningful transparency about methodology and pricing, though it doesn't describe output structure or failure modes.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately states what the tool does, then provides key methodology and cost details. There is no wasted wording, and the structure is easy to scan.

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 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides a good overview of purpose and methodology but lacks parameter details and output format. It is a viable but incomplete description for an agent to fully use the tool without guessing.

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 0%, so the description should compensate. It only hints at the chain parameter by mentioning Base/Ethereum but doesn't explain limit, min_tvl, or stablecoin. The parameter names and defaults are self-explanatory to some degree, but the description adds little beyond the schema's property titles.

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 identifies the tool as a risk-adjusted DeFi yield screener that ranks Base/Ethereum pools by yield discounted for various risk factors. It specifies the resource (pools) and the action (ranking/screening), and the 'top' in the name implies a ranked list. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like defi_pool_deep, so it's not a 5.

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: if you want the best risk-adjusted DeFi yields, use this tool. It provides context for when to use it (screening top pools), but it doesn't mention alternatives or when not to use it. No explicit guidance about when to choose defi_pool vs defi_pool_deep is given.

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 important behavioral details: the cost ($0.05 USDC), the chain (Base), and the exact checks performed. With no annotations, the description carries the burden, but it does not explicitly state read-only behavior or any potential side effects beyond the monetary cost. The listed checks imply a non-destructive analysis, but it's not confirmed.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that packs maximum information with no wasted words. Every segment (depth, checks, cost, chain) serves a purpose.

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 of a deep analysis tool and the absence of an output schema, the description lacks essential context: what the result looks like, how to interpret findings, or what the address parameter represents. The cost and chain info is helpful, but overall the description leaves the agent without enough to confidently invoke 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'Base' which maps to the chain parameter's default, but does not explain what 'address' refers to (e.g., token contract address) or provide any validation/format guidance. The address parameter, which is required, is completely unexplained.

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 identifies the tool as a deep contract-control analysis, listing specific checks (owner()/admin, renounced, EOA-vs-multisig, proxy implementation). The implicit verb 'analyze' is understood, and the 'deep' qualifier distinguishes it from lighter scan tools like token_risk_scan.

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 term 'deep' implies this is a more thorough follow-up to token_risk_scan, and the cost/chain info suggests a paid Base-only analysis. However, there is no explicit 'use when' or mention of alternatives, so the usage context is implied rather than stated.

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 operation is static, lists return fields (risk_score, risk_band, flags), and states a $0.02 USDC cost on Base. However, it does not explicitly state the operation is read-only or mention permissions, rate limits, or failure modes.

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 and front-loaded, with each clause earning its place: purpose, risk factors, return values, and pricing. No waste 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?

For a simple 2-parameter tool, the description gives core information, but gaps remain: no output schema, no flag/risk_band semantics, no explicit supported chains, and no differentiation from 'token_risk_deep'. The cost and static nature help but are not sufficient for full context.

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 0% and the description adds no explanation of the 'address' or 'chain' parameters beyond what the schema shows. 'Address' is self-explanatory, but the description does not help the agent understand what values are valid or how the chain parameter affects behavior.

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 this is a static on-chain token/contract risk scan, listing specific risk factors (proxy, mint, pause, blacklist, setFee, honeypot, verified source) and return fields. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling 'token_risk_deep'.

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 token risk scanning but provides no guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings like 'token_risk_deep' or the defi_pool tools. No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternatives are mentioned.

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