risk_token

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

The description fully discloses behavior: cost ($0.15 per call), deterministic and auditable nature, rubric details (start at 50, adjustments for bytecode, price, verification, supply, decimals, age), and disclaimers (NOT financial advice). No annotations provided, so description carries full burden and excels.

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 front-loads the cost and main purpose. It includes detailed rubric information that is valuable but could be slightly more concise. Overall, it is efficient and informative.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description clearly states the return values (score, flags[], every rubric input) and explains the rubric and inputs. For a tool with 2 parameters, this is very complete.

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 clear descriptions for both 'chain' (enum) and 'address' (pattern). The description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 explicitly states the tool gets a deterministic, auditable risk score (0-100) for an ERC-20 token on Ethereum, Base, or Polygon. The verb and resource are clear, and the scope distinguishes it from siblings.

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 clearly implies when to use (when needing a token risk score) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use. Given the unique sibling tools, the context is sufficient for selection.

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