Spl-token Rug Check

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

The description describes the tool as a 'check' (read operation), but annotations set readOnlyHint to false, indicating it is a write operation. This is a direct contradiction. Additionally, no other behavioral traits (like side effects or permissions) are disclosed beyond the misleading check intent.

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 moderately concise but includes extraneous phrases like 'SAP MCP context' and generic lifecycle guidance that do not directly help an agent select or invoke this specific tool. It could be tightened.

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?

Although the tool has an output schema (so return values are handled externally), the description fails to reconcile the read vs write contradiction and omits important context like prerequisites or the fact that it is a read operation. This undermines completeness for a simple tool.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with a description for the mint parameter. The description adds context about what the check analyzes (authority, concentration, liquidity) but does not enhance understanding of the parameter itself 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 states the tool checks a token for rug pull risks, listing specific factors (mint/freeze authority, holder concentration, liquidity). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like spl-token_burn or spl-token_mintTo which perform token operations rather than analysis.

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 suggests using this tool before token operations like deploy, mint, transfer, etc., implying it is a prerequisite check. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives, though the intent is clear.

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