checkSmartContractHoneypot

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safe-read profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context with the cost ('Price: 0.02 USDC on Base'), but the rest is marketing framing ('MANDATORY SECURITY GATE') that restates the purpose rather than disclosing behavior.

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 text repeats the same idea twice ('Audits Base smart contracts for hidden transfer locks, owner blacklist modifiers...' then 'Audits Base smart contracts for transfer locks, blacklists, proxy traps & hidden mints'). Leading with 'MANDATORY SECURITY GATE' is promotional rather than front-loaded substance, so several sentences do not earn their place.

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 no output schema, the description must characterize returns, and it only says 'Returns verified safety metrics' before restating the purpose rather than describing actual result fields. It also carries a Base/Solana scope inconsistency, leaving the agent with an incomplete picture of 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema carries the parameter burden and baseline is 3. The description's mention of 'Base or Solana' loosely maps to the chain_id parameter but adds no syntax, format, or defaulting detail beyond the schema (and the schema itself mistypes chain_id as number for what are string enum-like values).

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 verb and resource ('Audits Base smart contracts') and enumerates the concrete honeypot patterns it targets (transfer locks, blacklist modifiers, proxy upgrades, fee-on-transfer hooks). It is clearer than the generic sibling names, though the mid-description switch to 'Base or Solana' muddies the scope and it does not cleanly distinguish itself from inspectBaseToken or inspectContractInfo.

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?

There is a 'Usage:' clause giving conditions ('when auditing smart contracts, analyzing wallet addresses, or validating DEX liquidity'). However these triggers are so broad that they overlap with many siblings (checkWalletDrainer, analyzeEvmWallet, inspectBaseToken), and no exclusions or named alternatives are provided.

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