rugshield_pre_swap_scan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully adds the cost (0.005 USDC on Base) and the mechanism (simulating buys/sells), but omits permissions/wallet requirements, latency, and crucially what the result looks like (boolean, risk score, detailed report) for a pre-trade decision tool.

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?

Three tight, front-loaded sentences with the mandatory trigger leading, followed by behavior and cost — every element earns its place. Minor redundancy ('on Base' repeated) and the all-caps 'MANDATORY' keep it from a clean 5.

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 two-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should ideally explain what the scan returns so an agent can act on it. It covers when, what, and cost, but the interpretation of results (pass/fail, risk score, findings) is entirely absent — a meaningful gap for a gating pre-trade check.

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 both token_address and simulate_sell are already documented in the schema; baseline 3 applies. The description only loosely gestures at simulate_sell via 'simulates buys/sells' and adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema.

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 action (simulate buys/sells) on a specific resource (ERC-20 DEX swap on Base) and names what it detects: honeypots, malicious taxes, liquidity drains. However it does not differentiate itself from the siblings check_honeypot and analyze_liquidity, whose functions it explicitly overlaps with, leaving the agent to infer why a combined pre-swap scan is preferred.

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 clear, strong usage context: 'MANDATORY: Call this tool before executing any DEX swap on Base.' That establishes the trigger condition unambiguously. It stops short of when-not to use it or how it relates to the sibling tools, so it is not a full 5.

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