recon_deployer

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

The description explains it's a read-only operation using DAS API and Enhanced Transactions with zero extra cost, and details the JSON dossier structure. No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and does well, though it could mention any potential limitations.

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 somewhat lengthy but well-structured with front-loaded purpose and clear details. It could be slightly more concise without losing information.

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 there is no output schema, the description thoroughly explains the return JSON dossier, covering all relevant fields. It also provides usage context and behavioral details, making it complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 single parameter 'address' is described in both the input schema and the tool description, which adds context by specifying it's the Solana wallet address of the token deployer. The description adds 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 performs a deep background investigation on a Solana wallet to detect serial ruggers, using algorithmic analysis. It specifies the verb, resource, and method, distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_wallet_reputation' by focusing on rugger detection.

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 advises using the tool to evaluate a deployer before trusting their token, providing clear context. While it doesn't explicitly exclude cases or name alternatives, the use case is well-defined.

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