check_token

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does most of the work: it discloses that the tool simulates a swap, which risk classes it surfaces, and that it returns safe/warn/block with evidence. It falls short of an explicit statement that no real transaction or state change occurs, leaving slight ambiguity about whether funds are moved.

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?

Five short sentences front-load the main purpose and each adds necessary detail: method, risks detected, second check, output, and call timing. There is no filler or repetition.

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 simple 2-parameter tool with no output schema, it covers what the tool does, how it works, what it returns, and when to call it. Minor gaps remain around exact evidence shape and whether the simulation is entirely read-only, but these do not block correct invocation.

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 both parameters are already documented with chain options and address formats. The description adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond referring to the token contract, 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 description names a concrete purpose ('pre-trade safety check'), a distinctive method (simulated buy-and-sell against live liquidity), and secondary checks (ticker impersonation). It clearly differentiates from the sibling check_approvals, which concerns approvals, by focusing on token tradability and honeypot/tax risks.

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?

It explicitly says 'Call BEFORE buying', giving a clear temporal/contextual trigger. It does not explicitly state when to prefer check_approvals or exclude cases, but the pre-trade context makes the intended use obvious.

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