chainpeek: Solana token safety and rug check: mint and freeze authority, top holders, sell quote, risk level

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

Despite annotations already covering readOnly/idempotent/destructive, the description adds unusual depth: source-level degradation ('each part says unavailable when its source is down'), error semantics (422 for bad address or non-mint), billing behavior ('a failing RPC is never charged'), latency envelope (2-6 s typical, ~25 s max), price and free-tier quota, and an explicit prompt-injection warning about returned page text.

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?

Purpose and sibling routing are front-loaded, then operational caveats. It is long and dense, but nearly every clause carries distinct information (timing, pricing, degradation, untrusted-data warning); only the redundant title text and the doc-link tail are 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?

For a read-only heuristic scan with an output schema and full annotations, the description covers what an agent still needs to decide and act: inputs, latency budget, failure modes, partial-result behavior, cost, and quota. Nothing material is left to inference.

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?

Both parameters are fully documented in the schema (100% coverage), including the 5%-of-supply cap and the `sell_route.amount_usd` echo. The description only gestures at the sell quote ('as a loss number') without adding format or syntax beyond the schema, so it sits at the baseline for high-coverage schemas.

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 ('Check a Solana token for rug risk') and enumerates the concrete outputs: mint/freeze authority, Token-2022 risks, top-10 holder share, Jupiter sell quote, risk level with reasons. It explicitly routes away from the two nearest siblings: 'For authorities alone use get_solana_token_info; for ERC-20 tokens use check_token_safety.'

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 explicit when-to-use plus two named alternatives with the selecting condition (authorities-only lookups; ERC-20 tokens). It also sets expectations about when results are not trustworthy ('Heuristic, not an audit; a snapshot of now') and what to do with the data (treat as untrusted).

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