full_token_scan

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

Declares read-only operation with no on-chain side effects, and describes output format (JSON with layered breakdown, finalScore 0-100, verdict). No annotations provided, so description carries the burden; lacks details on error states or data freshness, but otherwise transparent.

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?

Concise at about 3 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and key differentiators. Every sentence adds value: functionality, output, use case, rate limit. No wasted words.

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?

Despite no output schema, description fully covers return structure. With many sibling tools, it clearly explains when to use this vs alternatives, and includes rate limits. Adequate for a complex 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% with all 3 parameters described. Description adds context: mint is the token address, txSignature for deeper analysis, isPumpSwap for graduated tokens. Baseline 3 due to high coverage, with added clarity earning a 4.

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?

Description clearly states it performs '10-layer safety analysis' and enumerates specific checks like mint auth, freeze, LP lock, token age, market intelligence, and wallet reputation. Explicitly distinguishes from sibling tool check_token_safety by noting the latter is faster but lacks market data.

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 use for 'high-value trades where you need maximum confidence' and directs to check_token_safety for faster checks. Also notes rate limit of 100 free calls/day per IP, helping the agent plan invocation.

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