RugProbe token safety check ($0.01)

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it discloses that the buy/sell is simulated rather than executed (implying no on-chain side effects), the paid cost, the heuristic/non-advisory nature, and the specific checks performed. Gaps remain around failure behavior for non-contract or non-ERC-20 addresses and how payment is settled, which is why it is not a 5.

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 purpose and scope are front-loaded in the first sentence, with the caveats and price in two short trailing sentences. The parenthetical check list is dense but each item earns its place by telling the agent what evidence it will get back. Slightly list-heavy phrasing is the only cost.

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 one-parameter tool this is close to complete: what is checked, on which chain, that results are simulated heuristics, the risk score range, and the price are all present. Because no output schema exists, the description would ideally sketch the returned fields, but the enumerated checks plus '0-100 risk score' cover most of what an agent needs to decide whether to call 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?

There is a single required parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, with the schema itself specifying the 0x address format and the Base chain. The description's mention of 'ERC-20 token on Base' reinforces chain and token-type expectations but adds no syntax or constraint detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies since 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?

States a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('an ERC-20 token on Base') and enumerates exactly what is inspected: honeypot simulation, buy/sell tax, liquidity, LP burn, owner powers, proxy upgradeability, and a 0-100 risk score. This is unmistakably distinct from the weblens_* siblings, which operate on web pages, so an agent can route correctly without opening the schema.

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?

'before trading' gives a concrete decision context that tells the agent when this tool is warranted. It also flags the cost gate ($0.01 USDC), which is a real usage consideration. It stops short of explicit when-not conditions or named alternatives, so it is clear context rather than full routing guidance.

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