Truedge Crypto Safety

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It lists the screening sources (OFAC sanctions, scam/drainer lists, on-chain reputation) and crucially warns 'Absence of a flag is NOT a guarantee of safety.' This addresses a key behavioral limitation. It does not explicitly state read-only semantics, but the 'check before sending' phrasing implies no side effects.

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 with no filler. It front-loads the main action, lists screening criteria, gives a usage example, and ends with a critical caveat. Each sentence 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?

For a single-parameter, read-only check tool with no output schema, this description covers purpose, usage, and safety caveat. It lacks return value details, but without an output schema and given the tool's simplicity, the agent can infer it receives a risk assessment. No critical information is missing.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining what the address is screened against (sanctions, scam lists, reputation), which is not in the schema. It reinforces the address format by mentioning '0x…' and 'Solana base58' implicitly through 'WALLET or contract ADDRESS', though the schema already states this.

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 uses a specific verb 'Check' and names the resource 'crypto WALLET or contract ADDRESS', states the purpose 'scam/sanctions risk', and distinguishes itself from siblings like check_url by focusing on addresses. The inclusion of 'before sending funds to it' clarifies the operational intent.

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 provides an explicit use case: 'Use for "is 0x… a scam / safe to send to?"'. This tells the agent when to invoke this tool. It does not explicitly name siblings for exclusion, but the clear scope (addresses vs URLs) plus sibling names makes routing straightforward.

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 behavioral burden. It discloses that findings can be stale and that the result indicates when a fresh check is needed, that a shared symbol resolves to one token, and that absence of a flag is not a guarantee of safety. These are non-obvious behavioral traits an agent must know before trusting the output.

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 about 80 words yet packs purpose, usage, and caveats into a tight, front-loaded structure. Each sentence adds value: the first states the function and scope, the second gives routing guidance, and the third covers staleness and resolution caveats. No fluff or repetition.

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 only one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It tells what data is returned, when to use it instead of an alternative, and what limitations to be aware of. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret results safely.

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 100% coverage for the single parameter 'symbol' but only describes it as 'Token symbol'. The tool description adds meaning by explaining that a shared symbol resolves to one of several tokens, which is crucial for interpreting results. This goes beyond the schema, though it doesn't specify the symbol format (e.g., ticker vs. address) or that it's case-insensitive, so a 4 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 opens with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('on-chain contract-safety findings (GoPlus) for a token'), then enumerates exactly what the findings cover (honeypot, mintable, ownership renounced, hidden owner, transfer-pausable, holder concentration). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool check_token_risk by stating the alternative is for an overall risk picture, so an agent can immediately tell which tool fits.

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 gives an explicit when-to-use directive: 'Use it when the question is specifically about the token's contract; use check_token_risk for an overall risk picture.' It also warns about staleness and symbol ambiguity, which directly affect when and how an agent should rely on results. No guesswork is needed.

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 burden. It states 'Informational only, not financial advice,' which is helpful context, and implies read-only behavior. However, it doesn't disclose specifics like whether the tool accesses live market data or is cached, or what happens if a token is unknown. Given the absence of annotations, the description provides some but not rich behavioral 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 concise, front-loads the core capability ('Get Truedge's overall risk posture'), and adds example use questions plus a disclaimer in just three sentences. Every sentence adds value, and there is 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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and full schema coverage. The description covers what the tool returns (risk tier, contract verdict, red flags) and when to use it, which is sufficient for basic invocation. It lacks an output schema, so the description could ideally mention what the response looks like, but the described components are enough for a single-param informational 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the 'symbol' parameter with an example. The description adds the meaning of the parameter in context (token symbol, used for risk checks) but does not go beyond the schema's example to clarify accepted formats (e.g., case sensitivity, whether symbols like 'BTC' work). Baseline 3 is appropriate with full schema coverage.

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: retrieving Truedge's overall risk posture for a crypto token, including specific components (pump-and-dump / risk-watch tier, contract-safety verdict, red flags). It distinguishes itself from siblings like check_address and check_contract_safety by specifying token-level risk posture, not address or contract details.

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 explicitly states when to use it: for questions like 'is <token> risky / a scam / safe to buy?', which guides appropriate invocation. It does not explicitly say when not to use it or name alternatives, but the usage context is clear enough given sibling tool names like check_contract_safety and check_address imply alternatives for contract or address-specific checks.

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 behavioral burden. It discloses the screening mechanisms (blocklists, look-alike heuristics) and explicitly warns that absence of a flag is not a guarantee of safety. It does not state whether the operation is read-only or describe side effects, but as a 'check' it is reasonably 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?

Two sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the caveat is concise. Every word adds value.

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 covers purpose, heuristics, and a key caveat, but does not describe the return format or how the result should be interpreted (e.g., boolean, risk score). Since there is no output schema, this is a notable gap for an agent deciding how to act on the result.

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% and the parameter description includes an example, which is sufficient. The tool description does not add additional semantic detail beyond the schema, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate given full coverage.

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 checks whether a URL is a known phishing/fake site, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings (check_address, check_contract_safety, etc.) by focusing on URLs, 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?

It gives a clear usage context ('before connecting a wallet') but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. However, the resource type (URL) makes it distinct from siblings, so the intended use is reasonably clear without listing when not to use it.

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 of behavioral disclosure. It reveals ordering (newest first), inclusion criteria (source-stated date, reported victim loss, accountable source), duplicate handling (merged), data provenance (reported losses may change), and explicit exclusions (no user impact or recovery info). This is exceptional transparency for a simple list 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?

Four concise sentences, each carrying unique value: what it returns, filtering rules, data reliability caveat, and usage guidance. The core purpose is front-loaded, and there is no fluff or repetition. Every sentence 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?

For a tool with one parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It explains the output format, limitations, filtering, and data caveats. The only parameter is fully documented in the schema. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to decide and invoke correctly.

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%, as the 'days' parameter already has a complete description in the input schema (default 30, max 90). The tool description adds no additional meaning about the parameter itself, so the baseline of 3 applies. No compensation is needed because the schema fully defines it.

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 opens with a precise verb and resource: 'List recent crypto hacks and exploits that Truedge tracks.' It also specifies output format (one line per incident with reported loss, date, URL) and use cases that clearly differentiate it from the sibling check tools. This is a model example of purpose clarity.

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 explicitly says when to use the tool ('Use it to answer... or to check whether a protocol was recently exploited') and states a key limitation ('it does not say whether a user was affected or how to recover funds'). However, it never names alternative sibling tools or tells the agent when to prefer them, so it falls short of a 5.

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