sol-defi-desk

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses price and payment rail ($0.01 USDC via x402), the exact checks performed, a notable scope limitation (no sell simulation), and billing behavior for failures ('Failed lookups are not settled'). It stops short of describing return shape or rate limits, but the disclosure is unusually rich for an unannotated 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?

Dense but front-loaded: cost and purpose lead, followed by inspected signals, then limitations and billing. The trailing note about free endpoints on the same origin is slightly off-topic but plausibly useful routing context. No filler sentences.

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-param, no-output-schema tool, the definition covers cost, scope, checks performed, exclusions, and failure billing — enough for an agent to invoke it correctly. It could be stronger only on output expectations (what riskLevel values mean) and sibling disambiguation.

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?

Single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents the token address format. The description adds only the constraint that it must be a Base ERC-20, which is marginally more than 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 states a specific verb and resource: a rug/honeypot-risk pre-check for Base ERC-20 tokens, and names the exact signals inspected (owner/renounced, proxy, privileged functions, liquidity venues, LP burned %, riskLevel). It partially differentiates itself from siblings by scoping to Base and by excluding sell simulation, but never explicitly contrasts with token_check or token_check_batch.

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?

Usage is implied (run this before interacting with a Base ERC-20 to screen rug/honeypot risk), and one limitation is given ('No sell simulation'). However, there is no explicit statement of when to choose this over token_check, token_check_batch, or mint_preflight, nor prerequisites beyond the payment mention.

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, and it discloses only that the call is free. It does not state that the operation is read-only, what the response looks like, whether authentication is required, or any limits, leaving the mutation/safety profile entirely unstated.

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?

It is a single compact sentence with the key 'FREE' qualifier front-loaded, so it is not verbose, but the heavy use of undefined internal terms makes it less clear than its length suggests.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema informational tool the description is minimally sufficient, but with no annotations it should at least state that the operation is a safe read and clarify what the buyer-facing summary 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?

The tool takes zero parameters and the schema is trivially complete, so there is nothing for the description to compensate for; baseline 4 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?

The name and description both indicate a descriptive/informational tool that summarizes paid tools, but the sentence is dense with unexplained jargon ('sol-defi-desk', '/sponsor /ledger', 'openly AI operator Survivor') and gives no sense of what the summary actually contains or how it differs from the sibling mint_preflight/token_check 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 'FREE:' prefix hints this is a no-cost operation as opposed to the paid tools it describes, which is a mild usage cue, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing to or away from any alternative tool.

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 and does well: it discloses the cost model (FREE), the absence of network calls ("No RPC"), and that validation is shape-based rather than authoritative. It stops short of stating limits, e.g. that a passing shape check says nothing about token legitimacy or issuer reputation.

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 short clauses, zero waste, with the cost and purpose front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place and nothing is buried.

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 one-parameter, no-output-schema preflight tool, the description is complete enough to call correctly: it covers purpose, cost, no-RPC behavior, and placement in the workflow. A brief note on what "known issuer assets" means for the response would close the remaining gap.

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?

Single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents the base58 mint address. The description's mention of "base58 shape" adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides; baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb and resource: validate Solana mint base58 shape, plus a secondary behavior (note known issuer assets). It explicitly contrasts itself with the paid sibling token_check, so an agent can distinguish it without opening either schema.

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?

"Use before paying for token_check" gives an explicit sequencing rule and names the alternative tool. The cost framing (FREE, no RPC) makes the selection condition unambiguous.

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 and does disclose meaningful traits: it is a paid call ($0.005 USDC via x402), it performs direct on-chain reads, and failed lookups are not charged. It omits authorization/rate-limit context, but the payment and settlement semantics are the operationally important details here.

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 core sentence is front-loaded and dense with useful content, but the trailing sentence advertising /shop/, /sponsor tips, and /ledger is unrelated to selecting or invoking this tool and dilutes the definition.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description compensates reasonably by enumerating the checks performed and the riskLevel heuristic, plus pricing/settlement terms. What is missing is sibling disambiguation and any indication of what a returned payload looks like beyond the field list.

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?

Only one parameter (mint) and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents it as a base58 SPL/Token-2022 mint address. The description adds nothing syntactic or semantic beyond the schema, matching the baseline of 3 for fully-covered parameters.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Solana token safety check') and enumerates exactly what is inspected (mint/freeze authority, Token-2022 extensions, metadata mutability, holder concentration, riskLevel). It does not differentiate itself from the sibling token_check_batch or mint_preflight, so an agent must infer that this is the single-mint variant.

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?

No when-to-use guidance and no exclusions; the agent is never told when to prefer this over mint_preflight or token_check_batch. The only conditional information ('failed lookups are not settled') is billing behavior, not usage 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, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the key trait that this is a paid call ($0.01 USDC fixed via x402), which is genuinely useful and not derivable from the schema. But it omits failure semantics, per-mint error behavior, and any rate/limit details an agent would want before paying.

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 first sentence is tight and front-loads the paid batch-check purpose with cost and limits. The trailing sentence advertising unrelated free endpoints (/shop/, /sponsor tips, /ledger) is off-topic for this tool and dilutes the definition rather than helping an agent invoke it correctly.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description must cover both invocation and result context. It covers payment and batch size and partially covers output by reference to token_check, but leaves the return shape, failure handling, and single-mint tradeoff to inference.

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 and schema description coverage is 100% — the schema already documents 'Comma-separated base58 mint addresses (1–5)'. The description repeats the 1–5 range without adding format, validation, or address-handling detail beyond it, so baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('batch Solana token safety checks'), plus the scope (1–5 mints). It also relates itself to the sibling token_check ('Same fields as token_check per mint'), so an agent can distinguish batch from single-mint checks without opening either schema.

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 the paid context, the cost, and the 1–5 mint batch range, and implies parity with token_check. However, it never explicitly says when to prefer this tool over the single-mint token_check, nor what happens at the boundaries (e.g., one mint, or more than five). Usage is implied rather than directed.

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