inspectBaseToken

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, correctly matching an audit/read operation. The description adds genuinely useful non-annotation context: what it returns (safety metrics) and the on-chain cost (0.010 USDC). It does not, however, add rate limits, auth, or failure-mode detail beyond that.

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?

Front-loads the intent, but the 'MANDATORY SECURITY GATE' framing is promotional, and the final 'Returns verified safety metrics: Base token contract & metadata safety audit' restates the opening sentence rather than adding information. The price detail is the main non-redundant new content.

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 must carry return-value burden; it signals 'verified safety metrics' and names the audited dimensions but gives no shape, fields, or verdict format. For a single-parameter audit tool with annotations covering the safety profile, this is adequate but leaves the return contract underspecified.

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% and there is a single required token_address parameter fully documented in the schema. The description only restates that it targets a Base token contract and adds no syntax, format, or addressing nuance, so the 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: audits Base ERC-20 token contracts for honeypot risks, transfer taxes, liquidity depth, and metadata injection traps. However, it muddies scope by also claiming 'Base or Solana' while the schema accepts only a Base ERC-20 address, and it doesn't differentiate from the closely-related checkSmartContractHoneypot sibling.

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?

Provides a 'Usage: Call this tool when...' clause covering auditing contracts, analyzing wallets, and validating DEX liquidity. But the conditions are broad and overlap heavily with siblings (checkSmartContractHoneypot, inspectContractInfo, inspectUniswapPoolState), with no when-not or explicit alternative selection.

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