scan_token_forensics

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld), it discloses a 100 calls/day/IP rate limit, zero API key requirement, block-pinned determinism, and cross-chain self-healing auto-detection — all material to invocation. It does not describe failure modes or what happens when the auto-heal picks a different chain than requested.

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?

It is a single dense sentence with the value proposition front-loaded ('[ZERO API KEY REQUIRED]'), which is good, but it is keyword-stuffed with jargon ('instruction-boundary opcode disassembly', 'deterministic provenance receipt') that crowds out actionable guidance of comparable length.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description only hints at the return value ('<400-token deterministic provenance receipt') without explaining its structure or fields. Combined with the missing sibling differentiation, an agent knows roughly what it gets but not how to interpret or route around it.

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%, so both parameters are already fully documented in the schema, including the chain enum and address formats. The description reinforces the chain scope but adds no new syntax, defaults, or constraints beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('scan') plus a concrete resource list: EIP-1967/1822 proxy resolution, opcode disassembly, honeypot and buy/sell tax audit across Base/ETH/Solana. An agent can tell what the tool produces, though it never contrasts itself with the overlapping sibling nullclear_token_security_audit or inspect_contract_abi_and_proxy.

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 states the supported chains but gives no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing. With a near-duplicate sibling (nullclear_token_security_audit) and proxy-inspection sibling present, the absence of any selection guidance leaves the agent to guess.

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