post_v1_safety_check

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It states the tool is sub-second, anonymous, and pay-per-use at $0.50. However, there is a critical contradiction: the input schema is empty (no parameters), but the description implies that the tool accepts URLs, crypto wallets, messages, or phone numbers as input. This inconsistency undermines transparency and could mislead an AI agent about how to invoke the tool.

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 concise, front-loading key functions and outcomes. Each sentence serves a purpose, though some details like 'Pay-per-use, multi-chain settlement' could be streamlined. It remains easily readable and scannable.

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 absence of an output schema and the contradiction regarding input, the description is incomplete. It explains what the tool does and outputs but fails to clarify how to provide the required input (URL, wallet, etc.), which is essential for invocation. The empty input schema suggests the tool takes no arguments, contradicting the description.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (empty). The description adds context about the types of inputs it processes (URLs, wallets, etc.), which goes beyond the schema. With no parameters, the baseline score is 4, and the description provides useful but non-parameter-specific guidance.

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 function: providing an instant fraud and phishing verdict for URLs, crypto wallets, messages, or phone numbers. It specifies the return values (safe, warning, scam, uncertain) with confidence and reasons. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from similar sibling tools like post_v1_safety_check_deep or post_v1_safety_check_standard.

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 mentions that it is built for autonomous agents to screen counterparties before acting, providing a clear use case. However, it fails to specify when not to use this tool or suggest alternative siblings (e.g., batch or deep check) for different needs, leaving some ambiguity about tool selection.

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