Token Intel — Trust-Vetted ($0.05)

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the output includes price, market data, and a trust assessment, and mentions cost. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, error behavior, or data freshness beyond the trust vetting.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and unique value proposition. Every sentence adds information without waste.

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 tool with one parameter and a clear output scope (price + market + trust), the description covers the main features and cost. It lacks details on error states or prerequisites, but given the simplicity, it is fairly 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?

With 100% schema coverage, the description adds no additional parameter detail beyond the schema's 'Coin symbol, e.g. btc'. The baseline of 3 is appropriate as the description does not enhance semantic understanding.

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 provides token intelligence combining market data with a scam/rug-risk assessment. It uniquely positions itself among siblings like crypto_price and trust_check by explicitly noting 'Only DYOE fuses market data with trust.'

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 the tool is for when both market data and trust assessment are needed, and it mentions the cost. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternatives like crypto_price or trust_check individually.

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