check_memecoin_risk

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

Without annotations, the description lists detection types (bundler, dev sells, sniper) but fails to describe the output, side effects, or access constraints beyond the implied 'Pro tier'. Missing return value or behavioral details.

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 concise, two sentences long, and immediately states the purpose. No unnecessary words, well-structured.

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 simplicity and no output schema, the description covers key aspects of what it does. However, it omits the return format (e.g., score, boolean) and does not provide enough context for an agent to fully understand the invocation's result.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with a basic description for the 'mint' parameter. The tool description repeats the same info without adding new meaning, so baseline score of 3 applies.

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 evaluates 'Memecoin-specific risk' and lists specific detection types (bundler, dev sells, sniper). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_rugpull_risk or get_risk_score, which cover different risk 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?

The description implies usage for memecoin risk analysis and mentions 'Pro tier', but it does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives like check_rugpull_risk. No when-not-to-use or context exclusions are provided.

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