batch_audit_watchlist

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses bounded concurrency, the 20-token cap, output format choice, and a Pro-tier hint, but it omits whether the operation is read-only, any auth/license details beyond the prefix, and failure behavior.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It packs the core purpose, cap, concurrency behavior, and output options efficiently.

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?

There are no annotations and no output schema, so the description should do more to explain what an 'audit' returns, what chains are supported, and how the token objects are structured. As written, an agent lacks enough context to call this correctly beyond the basic batch shape.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions the format enum and the 20-token maximum, but it says nothing about the per-token address field, the chain enum, or the default chain, leaving key parameter semantics unexplained.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'audit up to 20 tokens', and the batch nature is clear from the tool name and the cap. It does not explicitly distinguish this from the sibling scan_token_safety, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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 'Pro:' prefix hints at a license requirement, and the 20-token cap implies batch use, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of when to use scan_token_safety instead.

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