madeonsol_token_risk

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

Annotations already indicate safe, read-only, idempotent behavior. Description adds meaningful detail: explains score range, bands, and factors array with subfields. Does not address rate limits or output size, but adequate.

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?

Description is one sentence packing key info: purpose, output structure, access restriction. Could be slightly more structured but no wasted words.

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 simple one-param tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, output format, factors list, and access constraint. Complete for correct invocation.

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 100% with a single 'mint' parameter described as 'Token mint address (base58)'. Description adds no further semantic context for the parameter beyond 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?

Description clearly states the tool evaluates token rug-risk/safety with a 0-100 score and lists the output components. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'token_get' or 'token_flow'.

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?

Provides access restriction (PRO/ULTRA only) but does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools for similar tasks. Implicitly, it's for risk assessment.

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