check_token_safety

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions using an external API (GoPlus Security), which implies rate limits or dependencies, but does not detail side effects, permissions, or that the operation is read-only. Lacks transparency on what happens during analysis.

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, well-structured sentence that conveys the tool's function concisely without unnecessary words. Front-loaded with the core action and outcomes.

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?

The description covers the types of risks analyzed but omits output format details, which is important since no output schema exists. Also lacks mention of prerequisites or external API behavior. Adequate but incomplete given no structured guidance.

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 100%, providing a baseline of 3. The description adds minor value by explaining the default for chain_id and network options, but it largely mirrors schema details. No additional critical parameter insights.

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: analyzing a token contract for honeypots, taxes, mint risk, and ownership risks using the GoPlus Security API. It specifies the exact risks and the external API, distinguishing it from sibling tools like check_contract_safety and check_wallet_safety.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The description implies it is for token contracts, but does not contrast with siblings like check_contract_safety or check_wallet_safety. The usage context is implied but not explicitly stated.

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