token_verdict

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the most consequential trait: this is a paid call ($0.02 USDC on Base via x402), which an agent must know before invoking. It also previews the response shape (SOLID/CAUTION/DANGER, 0-100 score, six signals, analyst take, raw data). It omits failure modes, rate limits, and latency, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the decision it supports, then the endpoint/cost, then the return payload, then an Args block. Every sentence carries information the agent needs; nothing is padding.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be spelled out, yet the description summarizes them usefully anyway, and the payment requirement is essential context not captured by schema or annotations. The one missing piece is expected failure behavior for invalid addresses or unsupported chains.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: it documents both parameters with an intent statement and allowed values, and notes the "base" default that the schema only encodes as a JSON default. The address hint "(0x...)" is slightly misleading given the solana chain option accepts non-hex addresses, which is a real but minor gap.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ("Get a risk verdict for a token") plus the precise decision context (before buying, swapping, or routing funds). It also names the exact backing endpoint (POST /v1/verdict), so the agent knows exactly what operation this is. No sibling tools exist, so no differentiation is needed.

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 opening sentence clearly frames when to reach for it: pre-trade due diligence on a token. There are no sibling tools to route against, so no exclusions are required, but the description never states when this is unnecessary or insufficient (e.g., unsupported chains or non-contract addresses).

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