securityCheck

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool performs a 'check' but doesn't clarify whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are needed, whether it makes external API calls, or what the typical response format looks like. For a security tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 extremely concise at just four words, which is efficient and front-loaded. However, this brevity comes at the cost of completeness - it's arguably too terse for a tool that needs to explain security checking behavior and parameter usage.

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 security checking tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'security' means in this context, what the tool actually checks, what format the results come in, or how to interpret them. The agent would struggle to use this tool effectively.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the single parameter 'tokenAddress' is undocumented in the schema. The description doesn't mention this parameter at all, failing to compensate for the schema gap. It doesn't explain what format the token address should be in (e.g., BSC address format) or provide any semantic context.

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's purpose as checking security of BSC tokens, which is a clear verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't specify what 'security' means in this context (e.g., audit status, vulnerabilities, scam detection) or how it distinguishes from sibling tools like getWalletInfo that might provide related information. The purpose is understandable but somewhat vague.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or exclusions. Given sibling tools like getWalletInfo that might overlap with security aspects, the lack of differentiation leaves the agent without clear usage instructions.

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