aegis_recent_audits

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 two useful traits: the tool is free and covers three specific chains. It says nothing about return shape, streaming vs. snapshot semantics, refresh cadence, or rate limits.

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 zero filler, with the trigger condition placed first. It is efficient but so terse that it verges on under-specified for a monitoring tool.

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 and no annotations exist, so the description is the only source of behavioral and return-value information, yet it never says what a 'recent audit' contains (token address, risk score, timestamp). For a streamed-list tool an agent would need that to use the results correctly.

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?

Zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; per the baseline for 0-param tools this sits at the schema's default. The chain list in the description is scope, not a filter parameter, so it adds no parameter-level meaning.

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 specific resource and scope: a real-time stream of recently scanned tokens across Base, Ethereum, and Solana. It is clearly distinct from point-in-time siblings like aegis_token_audit or aegis_priority_audit, though it never names those alternatives 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?

The 'USE WHEN:' prefix gives an explicit trigger condition (monitoring the real-time scan stream), which is the strongest form of positive guidance. It offers no when-not guidance or pointers to the single-token audit siblings.

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