aegis_priority_audit

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose valuable traits: 100% fresh/un-cached results, multi-oracle sourcing, priority execution, and a $0.05 USDC cost on Base. It does not explain the payment/auth flow (how USDC is charged, x402-style handshake?), what happens on oracle failure or partial coverage, or latency expectations — significant gaps for a paid, priority-tier call.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the 'USE WHEN' trigger and containing no filler. It is efficient, though the trigger-only phrasing means the actual operation never appears as an explicit predicate.

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 is no output schema, so the description should say what the audit returns (score, oracle verdicts, risk flags, freshness timestamp) — it does not. For a paid, high-stakes security tool, the missing return-shape and failure semantics leave an agent unable to reason about the result it will get for its $0.05.

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% (address and chain with an enum and default of 'base'), so the schema already documents both parameters and the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond noting the payment/execution context is Base, which does not clarify how 'chain' behaves relative to the Base-denominated fee.

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 resource and modality: a fresh, un-cached, multi-oracle token security audit with priority execution, priced at $0.05 USDC on Base. That distinguishes it from the sibling aegis_token_audit (presumably cached/standard) and aegis_recent_audits without opening either schema. It is framed entirely as a 'USE WHEN' condition rather than an action statement, which slightly blunts the verb.

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 gives a clear triggering context (sniper bot or HFT agent needing un-cached, priority results), which is more than most tools offer. However, it never says when NOT to use it or names the cheaper alternative (aegis_token_audit / aegis_token_preview) that an agent should pick when freshness and priority are not required — the single most important routing decision for this family.

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