aegis_token_audit

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral weight, and it does disclose the paid nature and price ($0.01 USDC) plus the intended pre-transaction timing. It says nothing about result shape (verdict vs. score), latency, or whether the call is read-only, which are real gaps for a no-annotation tool.

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 first and no filler. Every clause (checks performed, timing, price) earns its place.

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?

For a two-parameter tool this is close to sufficient, and the paid-call disclosure is useful context. The remaining gap is that with no output schema the description never indicates what an audit returns, so the agent cannot plan on the response format.

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 coverage is 100% with only two params (address, chain enum), so the schema already does the semantic work. The description adds no parameter-level information, and its 'on Base' phrasing slightly conflicts with a chain enum that also allows ethereum and solana.

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 (smart contract / token) and concrete checks (security, honeypot traps, buy/sell taxes), so an agent knows exactly what the call produces information about. It falls short of 5 because it never distinguishes this from aegis_priority_audit or aegis_preflight_bundle, which likely overlap.

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?

'USE WHEN ... before executing a token swap' gives an explicit trigger and timing, which is strong usage guidance. It offers no exclusions or named alternatives for when a different audit tool is the better choice.

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