get_risk_score

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the return payload (score, threshold pass/fail, triggered flags) and the external data sources, which is useful. However, it does not state whether the call is a pure read or triggers external network/API fetches, what happens on failure or for an invalid mint, or any rate/latency behavior, leaving a meaningful gap for an un-annotated tool.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: what is computed and from which sources, what is returned, and the hard workflow prerequisite. The most decision-relevant constraint (must call before prepare_buy) is placed last but is unambiguous and clearly set off.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly explains the return shape (numeric score, threshold boolean, human-readable flags), and it covers the critical gating relationship with prepare_buy. It falls short only on failure/error behavior and whether the call has external dependencies or side effects, which would matter for a scoring tool hitting third-party APIs.

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?

Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the base58 Solana mint address fully. The description confirms the mint is the subject of the computation but adds no syntax, format, or validation detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource (compute a rug-pull risk score for a token mint), distinguishes itself from siblings like get_token_detail and get_new_tokens by naming the composite data sources (RugCheck, GMGN), and defines the scale (0-100, higher = riskier). An agent immediately knows what this does.

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?

Explicitly states the mandatory workflow condition: 'You must call this for a mint (and it must pass) before prepare_buy will accept it.' This is a concrete when-to-use rule with a named dependent sibling (prepare_buy), leaving nothing to inference about sequencing.

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