check_token_safety

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 using an external API (GoPlus Security), which hints at potential latency or rate limits, but does not disclose other behavioral traits like side effects, auth requirements, or async behavior. The description is adequate but not detailed.

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 sentence that conveys the tool's purpose without redundancy. There is no wasted information, and it is front-loaded with the key action and resource.

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 lack of an output schema, the description mentions the specific risks analyzed, which provides useful context for what the agent can expect. However, it does not explain the return format or error handling. For a tool with three parameters, it is fairly 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?

All three parameters are documented in the schema with descriptions (network, chain_id, token_address). The description does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides, such as default values or format requirements. With 100% schema coverage, a baseline of 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 states the tool analyzes token contracts for specific risks (honeypots, taxes, mint risk, ownership risks) using the GoPlus Security API. The verb 'Analyze' and the resource 'token contract' are unambiguous, and it distinguishes itself from siblings like check_wallet_safety and check_contract_safety.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The description only states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer context from sibling names. There are no alternatives mentioned or exclusions, making the guidance implied at best.

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