check_token_safety

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 does well by describing what the tool checks (specific risk factors) and its helpfulness for scam detection, but lacks details on behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what the output format looks like (since no output schema exists).

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose followed by specific checks and usage context. The Args section is clear but slightly redundant with the schema. Every sentence adds value, though minor trimming (e.g., integrating the Args into the main text) could improve flow.

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's complexity (safety analysis with multiple risk factors), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose, parameters, and usage context well, but lacks details on output format, error cases, or limitations (e.g., data freshness, coverage), leaving gaps for an agent to use it effectively.

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 description adds meaningful semantics for the single parameter 'token' by explaining it can be either a token symbol (e.g., 'BONK') or a mint address, which goes beyond the schema's generic string type. With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, this compensation is effective, though it could specify format constraints more precisely.

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 purpose with specific verbs ('Sicherheitscheck durchführen', 'Prüft') and resources ('Solana-Token'), listing exactly what it checks (RugCheck-Score, Mint/Freeze-Authority, etc.). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_token_info or get_token_price by focusing specifically on safety/risk assessment rather than general information or pricing.

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 for when to use this tool ('Hilfreich um Scam-Tokens und Honeypots zu erkennen'), indicating it's for detecting malicious tokens. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools (e.g., use get_token_info for general details instead).

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