security_prompt_firewall

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses determinism, ultra-fast performance, and a price of 0.01 USDC on Base, but omits what actually happens to the input (is it modified, flagged, or blocked?), what the return value is, and any auth requirements beyond payment.

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 tight sentences: the first front-loads the tool's purpose and key traits, the second states the price. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words.

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 and no annotations, the description should explain the return behavior, but it does not state what the scrubber returns or how results are communicated. For a security tool, this leaves a critical gap for an agent deciding whether and how to use it.

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 coverage is 100% with one well-described parameter ('Raw text context to scrub for prompt injections'). The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 resource and function: a prompt-injection and wallet-drainer scrubber for agent context windows. It clearly distinguishes itself from most siblings like security_x402_endpoint_verifier or research tools, though it does not explicitly state the verb 'scrub' and overlaps somewhat with stealth_scrape_and_sanitize's sanitization scope.

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 phrase 'for agent context windows' implies the intended use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or comparison with alternatives such as stealth_scrape_and_sanitize or pre_trade_agent_gate. Usage is only implied, not guided.

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