check_exploit_history

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full burden. It implies a read-only query but does not confirm safety traits like no side effects, rate limits, or data freshness. The description is too brief to ensure behavioral clarity.

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 extremely concise with a single sentence that effectively communicates the core functionality. It is well-structured and front-loaded, though it sacrifices completeness for brevity.

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 tool with one input and no output schema, the description provides a high-level purpose but lacks details on return format, data volume, or any constraints. It is minimally complete but leaves the agent guessing about outputs.

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?

The sole parameter 'entity_slug' is unexplained in the description. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should clarify that it is a slug identifier for a protocol. The current description only mentions 'per protocol' without linking to the parameter.

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 checks historical exploits per protocol, specifying data sources (Rekt + DefiLlama hacks). It distinguishes from sibling check_ tools like check_memecoin_risk which focus on different aspects.

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?

No usage guidelines provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as other security assessment tools, nor does it mention any prerequisites or context.

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