rug_check_token

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It details the on-chain checks performed (dangerous owner powers, ownership renounced, owner supply, DEX liquidity, LP lock/burn), offering transparency about data sources. However, it does not disclose potential limitations such as API rate limits, error handling, or behavior for non-ERC-20 tokens.

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 tool's main purpose and outputs, followed by methodology and usage context. Every sentence adds value; no wasted words.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description adequately specifies the return values (risk score 0-100, verdict) and explains the logic. It is sufficient for a tool with two simple parameters, though it could benefit from noting the exact response format.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (chain and address). The description reiterates the chain options and address format without adding new semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline of 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 states the tool assesses whether an ERC-20 token is a likely scam/rug pull, with specific outputs (risk score 0-100 and verdict). It also names the sibling tool 'rug_check_many', which implies this tool checks a single token, distinguishing its purpose.

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 recommends using this tool 'whenever a user or agent is about to trade, approve, or add liquidity for an unfamiliar token,' providing clear context. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or contrast with alternatives beyond naming the sibling, but the usage guidance is still strong.

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