Rug Munch Intelligence

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key traits: it's a read operation (implied by 'get'), returns a daily index, includes cost information ($0.02), and explains what high values mean. It lacks details on rate limits or error handling, but for a zero-parameter tool, this is sufficient for good transparency.

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 highly concise and front-loaded, with every sentence earning its place: it defines the index, lists components, explains high values, and states the cost. There is no wasted text, making it efficient and well-structured for quick understanding.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (simple zero-parameter read), no annotations, no output schema, and 100% schema coverage, the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, components, interpretation, and cost. However, it lacks details on output format (e.g., structure of the returned index), which would be helpful since there's no output schema, preventing a score of 5.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the input schema has 100% description coverage (though empty). The description adds no parameter information, which is appropriate. Since there are no parameters to document, a baseline of 4 is applied, as the description does not need to compensate for any gaps in schema coverage.

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: it returns a daily market-wide rug risk index (0-100) with specific components listed (high_risk_ratio, rug_velocity, liquidity_drains, deployer_activity). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on a broad market index rather than individual token or wallet checks, making the purpose specific and well-differentiated.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: to assess overall market rug risk, with a note that high values indicate more rugs happening and to exercise caution. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among sibling tools, such as for individual token checks, which would be needed for a score of 5.

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