Full token security scan. Args: address (0x...), chain (ethereum|base|arbitrum|optimism|polygon|bsc|avalanche). Returns risk score 0-100, honeypot, tax, source verification.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chain | Yes | Chain name | |
| address | Yes | Token contract address |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
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 mentions what the tool returns (risk score, honeypot, tax, source verification) but does not state whether the operation is read-only, has side effects, requires network access, or has any rate limits. For a security scan, the read-only nature is implied but not stated, leaving behavioral ambiguity.
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 sentence that efficiently packs the tool's purpose, arguments, and return fields. It is front-loaded with the primary action and leaves no wasted words. The structure is clear and easy to parse.
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 there is no output schema, the description compensates by listing the return values. It covers both parameters adequately and provides allowed chain values. It does not mention error handling or edge cases (e.g., invalid address), but for a scan tool with no annotations, this is 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?
The input schema provides only generic descriptions ('Chain name', 'Token contract address'), but the tool description adds concrete meaning by listing the allowed chain values and the address format (0x...). This is meaningful additional context beyond the schema, even though schema coverage is 100%.
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 action ('Full token security scan') on a specific resource (token), making the core purpose clear. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling honeypot_check, but the word 'Full' implies a broader scope, so it is somewhat distinguishable. Still, the lack of explicit differentiation prevents a perfect score.
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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus honeypot_check. The description lists arguments and return values but does not state conditions like 'use when you need comprehensive analysis' or 'use honeypot_check for a quick check.' An agent must infer the difference from the tool names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.