token_due_diligence

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

No annotations exist, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It does not state whether the tool is read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or any side effects. It only lists what it checks, not how it behaves.

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?

Single sentence with a clear front-loaded purpose and a bullet-like list of checks. Every word contributes value; no redundancy or filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values are covered. The description adequately lists the checks and supported chains. Missing prerequisites or error handling, but for a due diligence tool the core functionality is well described.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds allowed values for the 'chain' parameter (eth, base, bsc, arb, poly) but provides no additional details for 'contract_address' (e.g., format, examples). Partial improvement over bare schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('due diligence') and resource ('ERC-20 token') and lists concrete checks (risk score, honeypot, liquidity, holder concentration, ownership status). It clearly defines the tool's scope and supported chains, distinguishing it from vague or tautological descriptions.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'contract_check' or 'defi_risk'. No explicit when-not-to-use or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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