Token security audit

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

No annotations exist, so description bears full burden. It mentions a cost (~$0.003 in CIRC) and lists analysis categories but does not disclose if the tool is read-only, output format, or any side effects.

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?

Single sentence with no waste, though cost information is secondary. Purpose is front-loaded. Could be slightly improved by removing extraneous detail.

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?

Provides enough context for the tool's purpose but lacks output format details or prerequisites. Adequate for a simple 1-param tool but not comprehensive.

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 schema has 1 parameter (mint) with 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain that 'mint' is the token mint address, forcing the agent to infer.

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 'Rug-risk audit' with specific analyses (authority analysis, LP lock %, creator balance, risk flags), distinguishing it from sibling tools like token_overview or token_price.

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 implies usage for security auditing but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it reference alternatives among sibling tools.

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