token_forensics_preflight

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds genuinely new traits: deterministic external-provider aggregation, a per-IP free quota, and a paid x402 fallback with concrete payTo and asset addresses. It stops short of explaining how the payment is surfaced (e.g., a 402 challenge) or what happens when the quota is exhausted and payment fails, so it is strong but not complete.

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?

Effectively two sentences with the capability set front-loaded and the cost model appended where an agent can skip it. The two long hex addresses make the text dense, but they earn their place since they are actionable payment details rather than 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?

For a read-only two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the check categories an agent would want (honeypot, authority, LP lock, deployer risk), the chains, and the cost model. It never describes the shape of the returned verdict, which is the main remaining gap now that no output schema exists to cover it.

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% with only two parameters, and the enum plus the base58/0x address-format note are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, validation, or per-chain input nuances beyond what the structured fields supply, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource: a deterministic multi-chain preflight covering honeypot detection, Mint/Freeze authority, LP lock, and deployer risk, across Solana/Base/Ethereum. It also names the data providers (GoPlus, RugCheck, DexScreener), which pins down what is actually being checked and distinguishes it from the sibling preflight/lookup tools.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'preflight' suggests running it before interacting with a token, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative named. The only operational guidance is the pricing/quota statement (3 free calls/day/IP, then $0.05 USDC), which is billing context rather than selection guidance.

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