nansenTokenScreener

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it returns honeypot/tax/liquidity metrics and discloses a per-call cost (0.010 USDC), which is useful beyond the annotations. It does not, however, explain what 'pre-verified' means, the source of the safety verdicts, or any rate/coverage limits.

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 description is bloated with promotional content ('80% discount'), a price restatement, and redundant sentences that repeat the same screener claim twice. Front-loading is handled by shouting 'MANDATORY SECURITY GATE' rather than stating the purpose first, 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?

For a read-only, 2-parameter screener with no output schema, the description does name the returned metrics (honeypot, tax, liquidity depth) which is the essential context. But it omits any indication of output shape or verdict format, and the over-broad usage guidance risks agent misuse.

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% — both chain and token_address are fully documented in the schema, including format examples. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that (it never mentions how chain/token_address are used together), so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 purpose is discernible: it screens Solana (Pump.fun/Raydium) and Base (Aerodrome/Uniswap V3) tokens for honeypot, tax, and liquidity metrics. However, the framing is muddled by coercive marketing language ('MANDATORY SECURITY GATE') and repetitive restatement ('Returns verified safety metrics: Real-time ... token screener'), and it names no sibling to distinguish itself from checkSmartContractHoneypot, inspectBaseToken, or getSafeBaseTrending.

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 'Usage:' clause says to call it 'when auditing smart contracts, analyzing wallet addresses, or validating DEX liquidity' — a scope far broader than a token screener and misaligned with the stated function of screening token contracts. Combined with the 'MANDATORY' framing, this pushes near-universal invocation with no when-not or alternative-tool guidance, which is misleading rather than helpful.

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