check_token_safety

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses 5 specific checks performed (mint authority, freeze authority, extensions, honeypot simulation, holder concentration) and the output format (combined risk score 0-100 and verdict). It does not mention rate limits or auth needs, but for a read-only analysis tool this is sufficient.

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?

Three concise sentences: purpose with usage timing, list of checks, and output summary. No redundant or trivial content. Each sentence serves a clear purpose, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 adequately summarizes the return (risk score and verdict). It covers when to use, what checks are performed, and basic output. Could mention possible edge cases or error handling, but overall complete for a token safety analysis tool.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds minor extra context for 'isPumpSwap' (Pump.fun graduated tokens), but otherwise repeats the schema's own descriptions. No significant additional semantic value 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 with a specific pre-transaction usage instruction. It lists 5 distinct checks, making the purpose unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like check_honeypot or batch_scan.

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 'Call this BEFORE executing any swap or buy transaction', providing clear when-to-use guidance. It does not explicitly mention when not to use or name alternatives, but the context of being a comprehensive safety check implies it should be used over individual checks.

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