check_lp_lock

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

Explicitly states it is a read-only operation with no on-chain side effects, and describes the internal process (discover pool, decode state, compute burn percentage, check holders). No annotations provided, so description carries full burden and does so well, though edge cases or limitations are not mentioned.

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 and front-loaded with the main purpose, though it includes some internal steps that could be trimmed. Still, it's not overly long and every sentence adds value.

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 lists the return fields (pool address, LP mint, burn percentage, lock type, risk score) and explains the internal logic, which is sufficient for a read-only tool with one parameter.

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 already describes the sole parameter as 'Solana token mint address' with 100% coverage. The description does not add additional meaning to the parameter beyond the schema, so baseline 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 it checks whether a Solana token's LP tokens are burned or locked, and distinguishes from siblings like full_token_scan for comprehensive analysis.

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?

Explicitly advises using this for LP-specific analysis and directs to full_token_scan for comprehensive analysis, providing clear when-to-use guidance.

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