Crypto Jailbreak & Injection Detection

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

Despite annotations carrying no safety hints, the description discloses substantial behavioral traits: it is pre-action, costs $0.02, returns NO_COMMIT with 'reason' and 'findings' naming matched categories, and screens raw input rather than derived decisions. This goes well beyond what annotations alone convey.

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 dense but every sentence delivers critical value: purpose, concrete patterns, return behavior, and pipeline ordering. It is front-loaded with the pre-action caveat and cost, and the length is justified by the specificity of the examples.

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 tool's complexity, the description fully covers what it does, when to use it, what it returns, and how it fits into the DCL pipeline. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to specify return structure, but the description already mentions key return fields.

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%, with parameter descriptions already covering agent_id, response, and payment_id. The tool description does not add further parameter-level detail, but none is needed because the schema is fully self-documenting.

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 uses a specific verb ('screen') and resource ('crypto-specialized instruction-override/jailbreak/injection'), clearly distinguishing it from the sibling 'dcl_evaluate_jailbreak' by emphasizing the crypto-specific angle. It names concrete pattern categories (drain-wallet, unlimited-approval), leaving no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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?

Explicitly instructs to 'run this FIRST in the DCL crypto pipeline, before wallet/trade/MEV checks' and explains why: it screens the input itself rather than a decision built atop it. This provides clear when-to-use guidance and implicitly excludes use after downstream checks have been built.

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