check_token_risk_premium

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions a cost of $0.10, which is useful behavioral context not in the schema. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, response format, or whether it's a read-only or mutating operation. For a risk analysis tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 concise and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose and listing key features in a single sentence. The second sentence adds usage and cost information efficiently. There is no wasted text, though it could be slightly more structured for clarity.

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 complexity implied by 'deep risk analysis' and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is somewhat incomplete. It covers the purpose and cost but misses details on behavioral traits, output format, and differentiation from siblings. This is adequate for a basic understanding but has clear gaps for effective tool selection.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('token_address' and 'chain') with clear descriptions and a default value. The description does not add any meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how these inputs affect the analysis. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Premium deep risk analysis' with specific components like 'category breakdown, deployer cross-reference, social OSINT, holder intelligence, and historical pattern matching', which distinguishes it from simpler risk checks. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'check_token_risk' or 'marcus_forensics', which might offer similar analyses.

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 some guidance with 'Use for high-value positions', implying this tool is for important or large investments. It also mentions a cost of $0.10, which helps in decision-making. However, it doesn't specify when to use this over alternatives like 'check_token_risk' or 'marcus_quick', nor does it list any exclusions or prerequisites.

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