RugCheck report (Solana)

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

Annotations already carry readOnly/openWorld/idempotent/non-destructive safety context. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond those annotations, such as what default vs verbose mode returns, including the capped raw payload. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action and output summary, then enriched with verbose-mode details and platform constraint. Every sentence earns its place without repeating structured fields.

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?

With an output schema, full parameter coverage, and strong annotations, the description covers purpose, mode behavior, result contents, and platform routing. Nothing essential is missing for correct tool selection and invocation.

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% so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by enumerating verbose-mode fields like mint/freeze authority, top holders with insider flags, metadata mutability, and Jupiter verification that the schema does not list.

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 names a specific action and resource: "fetch rugcheck.xyz's risk report for a solana mint" and enumerates the report's fields. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from honeypot_check by stating "solana only."

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?

Gives clear routing guidance: use for Solana mint risk reports, use verbose=true for richer detail, and use honeypot_check for EVM tokens. This directly tells an agent when to use this tool vs alternatives.

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