madeonsol_tokens_batch_risk

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

Beyond annotations (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld), the description adds quota impact, error handling for untracked mints (no batch failure), response ordering, and output shape details, enriching behavioral understanding.

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, well-structured paragraph that efficiently covers purpose, usage, and behavior with no repetition. It could be improved with bullet points for readability, but it is concise.

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?

Without an output schema, the description fully explains the return values: per-mint shape, error cases, ordering, and count. It also covers quota and tier requirements, making it complete for an agent to use correctly.

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?

The schema documents the mints parameter at 100% coverage. The description adds meaning by specifying the limit (up to 50), the output shape, and error handling, providing context beyond the basic schema description.

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 performs bulk token rug-risk/safety scoring for up to 50 mints, explicitly linking to the single-mint version for output shape and distinguishing it from siblings like madeonsol_token_risk.

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?

It indicates the tool is for batch operations, counts as one quota request, and is PRO/ULTRA only. It also describes how untracked mints are handled, but does not explicitly state when to use alternatives, though the sibling reference implies single-mint usage.

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