scan_token_risk

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns a structured risk report with recommendations, providing some insight into output behavior. However, it does not mention any limitations, side effects, or prerequisites beyond the input. For a read-only analysis tool, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose ('Comprehensive token risk analysis'), then enumerates specific aspects and outcomes. Every sentence adds value without 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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers what it does, on which chains, and what it returns. It could be enhanced by noting any error conditions or interpretation guidance, but the simple input and read-only nature make this sufficient.

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 documents the single 'token_address' parameter at 100% coverage, so the description adds no additional parameter semantics. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema fully describes the parameter.

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 verb ('scans') and resource ('any token on Base/Ethereum/Arbitrum'), and lists specific analysis dimensions (liquidity, volume, market cap, holder concentration, contract security). It distinguishes itself from siblings like scan_defi_yields and check_wallet_exposure by focusing on token risk.

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: use this for comprehensive token risk analysis. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the focus on token risk makes the intended use obvious. However, it lacks an explicit 'when not to use' or comparison with sibling tools.

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