check_honeypot

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

No annotations, so description covers behavior: simulates a sell, zero cost, quote-only, returns yes/no. Transparent about non-destructive nature. Could mention rate limits or result details, but sufficient for a simple check.

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?

Two sentences, no redundant information. Front-loaded with key action and result. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Simple tool with 2 params, no output schema. Description covers purpose, behavior, and return type. Complete for its complexity level.

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 has 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters. Description adds that 'amount' is a default of 1000000 raw tokens and is used for simulation. Adds context beyond schema.

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?

Clearly states it checks if a Solana token is a honeypot by simulating a sell order via Jupiter. Specific verb 'check' and resource 'honeypot' distinguish it from sibling tools like 'check_token_safety' which may cover broader risks.

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?

Provides context: zero cost, only requests a quote, and returns sellability. Implicitly indicates when to use (before real sell). Does not explicitly contrast with siblings, but the purpose is narrow enough.

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