auditMcpToolSchema

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety posture is covered. The description adds two genuinely useful behavioral facts beyond the schema: it is framed as a 'MANDATORY SECURITY GATE' and it discloses a cost ('Price: 0.010 USDC on Base'), which is real operational context. Return details remain vague ('verified safety metrics').

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 gate claim is front-loaded, which is good, but the paragraph carries redundant restatement ('Audits MCP tool schemas and descriptions for tool-poisoning attacks') and an out-of-place pricing clause. Roughly one of four sentences is wasted or contradictory, so it is adequately sized but not tight.

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 single-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description should clarify the expected return shape and the tool_name format, but it only says 'Returns verified safety metrics.' Combined with the misleading usage line, an agent lacks enough to call it correctly and interpret results.

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?

There is a single required parameter (tool_name) with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The schema description is circular and generic, and the tool description adds nothing to clarify what tool_name should contain (e.g., a fully qualified name or the raw definition text).

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 core claim is specific: it 'Inspects Model Context Protocol (MCP) tool definitions, JSON schemas, and server cards for hidden instructions, tool shadowing, and data exfiltration vectors,' which is a clear verb+resource. However, it never distinguishes itself from the near-identical sibling auditMcpToolPoisoning, and the intervening usage sentence muddies the actual purpose.

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 stated usage ('Call this tool when auditing smart contracts, analyzing wallet addresses, or validating DEX liquidity on Base or Solana') points to tasks unrelated to auditing MCP schemas, which is misleading rather than helpful. No condition is given for choosing this tool over auditMcpToolPoisoning or canary_sanitize.

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