Rug pull probability

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

Annotations already mark readOnly, idempotent, openWworld, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: the score direction (higher = more dangerous), what the verdict/signals do and do not include (no wallet list), and a cost/unit hint ('one API unit on any chain'). No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Four sentences, each earning its place: core result, directional contrast, explicit routing to siblings, and a brief argument/cost note. The key scope and danger direction are front-loaded. Slightly long but no wasted words; could be trimmed by merging the argument sentence, yet it remains tight.

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 the rich input schema, present output schema, and annotations, the description covers what the tool returns (score, label, signals), what it does not return (wallet evidence), when to use it, and cost. The only minor gap is that it does not describe pagination or additional output details, but the output schema and the explicit 'does not list wallets' caveat keep it complete enough for correct invocation.

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 100%, and the schema already gives thorough details for address (format, length, example, invalid input warnings) and chain (enum, default, why it is required for EVM). The description merely says 'Arguments: address and chain' and adds an API cost note, which is useful but does not add semantic meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Rug pull probability for one token') and gives the precise output shape: a 0-100 score with direction (HIGHER MEANS MORE DANGEROUS), a verdict label, and the driving signals. It also explicitly differentiates from the get_token_scan safety score, so an agent can tell them apart without opening the schema.

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?

It states exactly when to call ('ONLY when the user explicitly asks for a rug probability or rug likelihood') and explicitly routes all general safety/buy questions to get_token_scan. It also names alternatives for the wallet evidence use case (get_wallet_links, get_dev_tracker, get_launch_bundles), giving clear when/when-not and alternative guidance.

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