Retrieve a crypto token's prior RugRadar check results, including verdict, score, pool size, and time since last scan, to verify past safety assessments.
What RugRadar saw the last time this token was checked (verdict, score, pool size, how long ago).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chain | Yes | ||
| address | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It lists some returned fields, but does not state that the operation is read-only, does not explain behavior when no prior check exists, and provides no auth, rate-limit, or freshness guarantees beyond 'how long ago'.
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 single compact sentence with no filler, and the parenthetical list makes the return payload easy to scan. It is slightly under-structured as a fragment rather than a direct verb-resource statement.
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?
There are no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter documentation, so the description must compensate heavily. It partially describes the return contents but omits the meaning of chain/address, when to prefer this tool over check_token, and how missing history is represented.
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% for the two required parameters (chain and address), and the description never mentions them or their expected formats. The agent receives no semantic help for the inputs it must supply.
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 a specific resource and scope: historical RugRadar data for a token, including verdict, score, pool size, and age. It is clear enough to distinguish from a fresh check, but it never explicitly names or contrasts against the sibling tools such as check_token or get_report.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus check_token or the other siblings. The phrase 'last time this token was checked' implies a historical lookup, but the agent must infer all usage conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.