spl-token_rugCheck

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

No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavioral traits. It states what the tool checks but does not mention that it is read-only, what output to expect, or any side effects. More transparency on behavior and output would improve this score.

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?

A single, concise sentence (12 words) that front-loads the primary action and key details. No unnecessary verbiage; every word earns its place.

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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the purpose and what is checked. However, it could mention the output format (e.g., risk score or flags) to be fully self-contained. Still, it is relatively complete given the tool's simplicity.

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 single parameter 'mint' is well-described in the schema ('Token mint to analyze'), achieving 100% coverage. The tool description adds context about the analysis scope but does not add new parameter semantics beyond the schema. 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 clearly specifies the tool's function: checking a token for rug pull risks, listing specific risk factors (mint/freeze authority, holder concentration, liquidity). The verb 'Check' and resource 'token' are precise, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like spl-token_getBalance or spl-token_transfer.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies use for risk assessment before token interaction, but lacks clear context or exclusion criteria. With many sibling tools, better guidance would help.

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