aerocheck_pool

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It transparently lists what the tool checks (honeypots, rug pulls, etc.) and what it returns (scores, flags, verdict). It implies it is a read-only safe operation. However, it does not disclose potential error conditions (e.g., invalid pool address) or API dependencies, which would be helpful.

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 three sentences: purpose, detailed checks, and use case. It is front-loaded, every sentence adds value, and there is no redundancy. Perfectly sized for a single-parameter 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?

Given the tool has an output schema (context indicates true), the description appropriately summarizes return values (risk scores, flags, verdict) without needing detail. It covers the essential checks and use case. However, it could mention that the input is a contract address format and that the tool runs on Base network.

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?

The sole parameter 'pool_address' is not elaborated in the description; it only implies it is a pool address via the tool's purpose. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should provide format hints (e.g., Ethereum address format, checksum requirement). The description adds no semantic value beyond what 'pool_address' already conveys.

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 clearly states the tool performs risk assessment on Aerodrome DEX pools on Base, specifying exact checks (honeypots, rug pulls, hidden ownership, tax manipulation) and outputs (per-token risk scores, flags, AI verdict). It differentiates from sibling tools like 'contract_check' or 'token_due_diligence' by targeting a specific DEX and pool context.

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 description explicitly advises 'Use before providing liquidity', which is a strong usage guideline. However, it does not mention when not to use the tool or provide alternative tools for different contexts (e.g., single token checks). Still, the primary use case is clear.

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