generate_due_diligence

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses async behavior, return format (job_id, status_url), and polling need, plus notes Pro tier access. Missing details like error handling or invalid slug behavior, but covers key behavioral traits sufficiently.

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?

Two sentences: first states purpose concisely, second packs required param, depth options, async nature, return format, polling instruction, and tier. Every word earns its place; no filler.

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 is async and has no output schema, the description adequately covers what it does, required parameter, depth, and how to retrieve results. The optional focus parameter is not explained, which is a minor gap. Overall, sufficient for an agent to use correctly.

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%, so baseline 3. The description adds a note on depth values (light, standard, deep) but those are already in the schema. It does not elaborate on the optional focus parameter beyond its schema description. No new meaning beyond schema.

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 kicks off a full due-diligence report covering tokenomics, team, audits, risk, and narrative, distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on individual aspects. The verb 'kick off' and listing components make the purpose specific and unambiguous.

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 mentions required parameter entity_slug and depth options, and instructs polling get_agent_job. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like check_rugpull_risk or get_audit_reports, leaving some ambiguity about when a full report is appropriate.

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