check_token_safety

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

The description states it is a read-only operation with no on-chain side effects and mentions a rate limit of 100 free calls/day per IP. It also outlines the 8 checks performed and the return format. However, it does not mention potential failure cases or error handling.

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 well-structured, front-loading the purpose and usage, then detailing specific checks and alternatives. While slightly long, every sentence adds value and avoids redundancy.

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 complexity (8 checks, multiple sibling tools, no output schema), the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, when to use, behavioral traits, parameter roles, return format (risk score and verdict), rate limits, and explicit alternatives.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds slight context (e.g., txSignature for deeper analysis, isPumpSwap for Pump.fun tokens) but does not significantly enhance meaning beyond the 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?

The description clearly states the tool analyzes Solana SPL tokens for rug pull, honeypot, and safety risks, and explicitly distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_honeypot and check_holder_concentration by positioning it as a comprehensive pre-trade check.

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 says 'Call this BEFORE executing any swap or buy transaction' and provides clear alternatives: 'Use this instead of check_honeypot or check_holder_concentration... Use full_token_scan instead when you also need Birdeye market data and wallet reputation.'

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