post_v1_safety_batch

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the return format (verdict per item plus worst verdict), price, and category but does not mention side effects, authorization, rate limits, or whether it is read-only, leaving behavioral gaps.

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 reasonably concise, front-loading the tool name and purpose, then adding details on input types, cost benefit, and output. It could be slightly shorter but is well-organized.

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 batch tool with no output schema and a contradictory parameter schema, the description partially covers output but leaves input mechanics unclear, making it incomplete for an agent to use correctly.

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 no parameters, but the description implies items are passed (URLs, wallets, etc.), creating a mismatch. Since the schema is empty, the description fails to clarify how to send the input, reducing usefulness.

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 performs a batch safety check on up to 10 items (URLs, wallets, messages, phone numbers), distinguishing it from single-check siblings by emphasizing batch processing and cost savings.

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?

It indicates the tool is for agents triaging many counterparties or links quickly, implying batch usage. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., for single items or deeper checks) despite having siblings like post_v1_safety_check_standard and deep.

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