scam_check

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: offline, read-only, risk assessment only, per-rule findings, and the honest caveat that it does not detect confirmed scams. It lists specific patterns it checks (SetHook, AccountDelete, etc.) and explains the output structure.

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 a single dense paragraph that covers purpose, outputs, rules, and caveats. It front-loads the main verb and resource, but could be more structured (e.g., bullet points) for easier scanning. Every sentence adds value, but it is slightly long.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description thoroughly details the return format (dangerScore 0-100, SAFE/CAUTION/DANGER tier, verdict, per-rule findings). It lists the rules checked and explains tool limitations, making it complete for an agent to understand what the tool returns and its constraints.

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 0%, but the description adds full meaning: it explains both parameters ('txjson' and 'txBlobHex') as alternative inputs for the sign request. The description clarifies that txjson is an object and txBlobHex is a hex string, compensating entirely for the missing schema descriptions.

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's purpose: 'Score a sign request (txjson or raw tx_blob hex) for risky patterns BEFORE signing.' It specifies the outputs (dangerScore, tier, verdict, per-rule findings) and distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on scam risk assessment pre-signing.

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 says 'BEFORE signing' and 'Offline + read-only.' It clarifies that findings are potential risks, not confirmed scams, and that the tool does not consult block lists or verify on-chain addresses. This provides clear context on when and how to use the tool, though it lacks explicit 'when not to use' or alternative tool recommendations.

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