fomo_token_warnings

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does name the output categories (allowlist and buy-sell flags), but it does not explain the flag values, return format, network handling, or failure behavior. This leaves key operational details implicit.

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 a short, front-loaded phrase with no filler words. It is concise, but the brevity borders on under-specification, which is penalized in other dimensions rather than here.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations, and two required parameters, the description should at least define what the flags mean and how networkId/tokenAddress are used. It does neither, and it also fails to clarify its relationship to the similarly named fomo_token_allow_list sibling.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description only says 'for a token' without explaining tokenAddress format or the meaning/role of networkId. While the parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, the description does not compensate for the missing schema-level documentation.

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 identifies the resource (a token) and the two output concepts (allowlist and buy-sell flags), but it lacks an explicit verb and does not distinguish this tool from fomo_token_allow_list, which likely overlaps with the allowlist portion. It is clearer than a tautology but still vague about what 'warnings' actually represent.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus fomo_token_allow_list, fomo_token_details, or fomo_filter_tokens. No alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions are mentioned, so the agent must infer usage entirely from the name and sibling list.

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