pre_trade_agent_gate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose meaningful traits: determinism, a binary TRUST/BLOCK decision output, and a 0.01 USDC cost on Base (a payment prerequisite). It does not state read-only status, behavior on failure/timeout, latency, or what happens for the solana chain, so gaps remain.

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?

Two compact sentences that are front-loaded with the core capability, followed by the pricing constraint. Nothing is wasted, though the phrasing is dense jargon ('CanaryGuard injection scrubbing') that could be clearer.

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 gate tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, decision semantics, and cost but omits when to prefer it over security siblings, error/failure behavior, and the distinction between base and solana execution. It is minimally adequate rather than complete.

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 all four parameters are already documented in the schema. The description mentions Base/on-chain context but adds no syntax, format, or default-override meaning beyond what the schema already provides, making the baseline 3 correct.

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 states a specific verb+resource ('pre_trade_agent_gate' that returns TRUST or BLOCK) and enumerates its components (RPC liquidity, honeypot checks, injection scrubbing). It clearly conveys what the tool does, though it never names or contrasts itself against the several security siblings (security_prompt_firewall, security_x402_endpoint_verifier, security_attestation_bundle), leaving differentiation implicit.

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 no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative is named despite a crowded field of security-oriented siblings. Usage is only weakly implied by the word 'pre_trade' and the 'gate' framing, so an agent must infer the intended context.

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