research_token_due_diligence

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, covering safety and mutability. The description adds that the tool aggregates from 'multiple sources' and returns a 'structured risk assessment', which gives useful context. However, it does not disclose potential latency, external API dependency, or rate-limit behavior, so a 3 is appropriate given the annotation coverage.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary function, followed by a succinct breakdown of the output and purpose. Every sentence adds value and there is no redundancy or wasted words. This is exemplary conciseness.

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?

While there is no output schema, the description enumerates the key output components (contract safety flags, top holder concentration, liquidity metrics), giving the agent a clear picture of the result. It does not elaborate on potential failure modes or multi-chain specifics, but given the simplicity of the parameters and the aggregated nature, it is sufficiently complete for tool selection and invocation. A higher score would require more detail on data sources or error handling.

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 has 100% description coverage: 'token' is clearly described as 'Token address or symbol to investigate' and 'chainId' as 'Chain ID (defaults to runtime config)'. The description does not add new parameter-specific semantics, but the schema already handles them well. 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 clearly specifies the verb ('perform comprehensive due diligence') and resource ('on a token'), and it distinguishes itself from siblings by aggregating security, holder distribution, and market data into a single risk assessment. This is a specific and well-scoped purpose, differentiating it from tools like research_contract_security or market_get_token_price.

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 implies a holistic research use case ('comprehensive due diligence') but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools such as research_contract_security or research_token_holders. It provides clear context on what the tool covers, but lacks explicit 'when not to use' or alternative guidance. This earns a 4 for clear context without exclusions.

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