check_approvals

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

No annotations provided, so the description fully bears the burden. It explicitly states the tool is read-only, never moves funds, and never holds a key, and describes its operation in detail (pulling history, reading live allowances, classifying).

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 somewhat lengthy but every sentence adds value. It front-loads the core purpose and includes necessary detail. Minor redundancy could be trimmed, but overall it is well-structured.

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 no output schema, the description adequately explains the output format (prioritized verdict with revoke calldata). It also lists supported chains and explains the deep parameter's effect, making the tool's behavior fully understandable.

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 description adds no new parameter information beyond what's in the schema. The explanation of each parameter is already present in the schema, meeting the baseline for high 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 audits ERC-20 token approvals for drain risk, specifying it pulls Approval events, reads live allowances, classifies spenders, and returns a verdict. It distinguishes itself from the sibling revoke_plan by focusing on audit rather than execution.

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 gives clear usage scenarios: before/after interacting with unfamiliar dApps, when a user fears a drainer, or to harden any wallet. It does not explicitly mention when not to use, but the context is well implied.

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