check_exploit_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only states the data source and topic, but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what kind of output format to expect. This is insufficient for safe invocation.

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 a single sentence of 9 words, which is concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. However, at the cost of omitting crucial details. It earns its place but lacks completeness.

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 low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description should be complete enough for the agent to use the tool correctly. It fails to explain the parameter, return format, or contextual hints, leaving major gaps.

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 has 0% schema description coverage. The tool description does not explain what entity_slug should represent (e.g., protocol name, slug format) or how it relates to the exploit history. The agent must guess its meaning, risking incorrect invocations.

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 it provides historical exploits per protocol, specifying sources (Rekt and DefiLlama hacks). It distinguishes from siblings like check_rugpull_risk or get_audit_reports which focus on other security aspects. However, it does not explicitly say it returns a list or details, leaving some ambiguity.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Among many security-related siblings, there is no context on prerequisites, scope, or appropriate use cases. The agent would have to infer usage from the name alone.

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