aegis_preflight_bundle

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the call is paid ($0.20 USDC on Base) and that the four checks are bundled into one call, but says nothing about failure/billing behavior, latency, or whether results are pass/fail versus scored.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the trigger condition first and the capability list second; no filler. The dense jargon stack is compact rather than padded.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should indicate what the agent gets back — verdicts, per-check scores, or a boolean — and it does not. Given four parameters and a paid, multi-component tool, the explanation of inputs and price is adequate but the result shape is a real gap.

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 each of the four parameters is documented in-schema, including the tokenAddress example and the tradeAmountUsd purpose. The description adds only the framing that the bundle uses these inputs for the four checks, which is roughly baseline value.

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?

States a concrete composite action: multi-oracle honeypot audit, liquidity depth, counterparty KYA, and AP2 spend-mandate checks in one call, plus its price. That distinguishes it reasonably from the single-purpose siblings (aegis_token_audit, aegis_wallet_kya), though it never names them explicitly.

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?

Starts with an explicit 'USE WHEN' trigger naming the caller (autonomous trading agent or sniper bot) and the situation (pre-swap clearance). It gives no when-not guidance or pointers to the cheaper single-purpose siblings when only one check is needed.

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