token_safety

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the cost ($0.02 USDC per call) and the three classification outputs (taxed, rebasing, reflective), which are behavioral traits beyond a mere read operation. It doesn't explicitly state read-only status, but 'classifies' implies it.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the primary action and resource, and includes only essential information (classification categories and cost). No redundant or vague wording.

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?

The tool is simple with a single well-documented parameter. The description covers its purpose and cost, which is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it. It doesn't describe return format, but no output schema exists and the classification categories are already given in the description.

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 coverage is 100% with a detailed description of the `token` parameter, including format and example. The tool description adds no new semantic information about the parameter, so 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 states the tool's function: 'Classifies an ERC-20 token as taxed, rebasing, or reflective' — a specific verb and resource. It also provides the output categories, which fully distinguishes it from the sibling tools (e.g., catalog, pool_spreads) that have different purposes.

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 implies the use case by mentioning 'MEV and arb strategies', providing clear context for when to use the tool. It doesn't explicitly list exclusions or alternative tools, but no sibling tool overlaps with this functionality, so the implicit guidance is sufficient.

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