get_token_risk

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description adds value by detailing the analysis criteria (liquidity, whale concentration, holder count, volume patterns). However, it lacks additional context such as rate limits, data freshness, or error handling, which would enhance transparency.

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 front-loaded with the core function, followed by risk categories and analysis factors, all in two efficient sentences with zero wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a single-parameter tool, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity, one parameter, rich annotations, and lack of output schema, the description is mostly complete. It explains what the tool does, the output format (score and label), and analysis factors. However, it could improve by mentioning the return structure or any limitations, but it's adequate for the context.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema fully documents the 'mint' parameter. The description adds no extra parameter details, but since there is only one parameter and the schema is comprehensive, a baseline of 3 is appropriate. The slight boost to 4 reflects the tool's simplicity and the description's implicit reinforcement of the parameter's purpose in the context of risk scoring.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Get a risk score and risk label') and resource ('for a Solana token mint address'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_full_analysis' or 'get_trading_performance' by focusing solely on risk assessment. It specifies the output range (0-100) and risk categories, making the function explicit.

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 description implies usage for risk evaluation of Solana tokens but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'batch_token_risk' (for multiple tokens) or 'get_full_analysis' (which might include more metrics). No exclusions or prerequisites are provided, leaving the context somewhat vague.

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