scan_token_safety

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that results are heuristic and include evidence and limitations, which sets expectations, but it does not state read-only behavior, rate limits, authentication needs, or whether the scan has side effects.

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 sentence with no filler, front-loading the free scope and the two supported chains. Every phrase carries information.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description should more fully explain the required address input and what 'evidence and limitations' means in the response. As written, it leaves important invocation and interpretation 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%. The mention of Solana or Base loosely maps to the chain enum, but the required address parameter, its format, and the default chain value are never described, so the description does not compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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?

States a specific resource (Solana or Base token) and operation (risk heuristics with evidence and limitations). It is clear enough to understand the tool's role, but 'heuristics' is slightly vague and no sibling tool is named to distinguish it from detect_block0_bundler or trace_funding_clusters.

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?

Provides no when-to-use conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives. The word 'free' hints at a Pro/upgrade distinction but does not explicitly route the agent to get_pro_upgrade_info or another sibling.

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