check_token_age

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It correctly states the tool is read-only, mentions that newer tokens carry higher risk, and describes the output. However, it does not disclose error conditions, rate limits, or any potential side effects, which would be useful for full transparency.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two sentences. The first sentence clearly explains the purpose and output. The second provides usage guidance. No unnecessary words; each 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 the tool has a single parameter and no output schema, the description is highly complete. It describes the return values (timestamp, age, category, risk score) and provides interpretation context for risk. It also references the sibling tool for further analysis.

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 one parameter 'mint' with a description 'Solana token mint address'. The tool description does not add additional semantics beyond what the schema provides. Since schema description coverage is 100%, the baseline score is 3.

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 determines when a Solana token was created by finding its first transaction, and lists the returned fields (timestamp, age, category, risk score). It distinguishes from sibling tool full_token_scan, which is used 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?

The description explicitly says 'Use this for age-specific analysis; use full_token_scan for comprehensive analysis,' providing clear guidance on when to use this tool versus an alternative. It also notes it is a read-only RPC operation.

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