token_risk

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it states there is no auth/signup requirement, that the score is never a bare safe/unsafe verdict, that flags lacking GoPlus data stay null, and that raw source data is returned alongside the score. This tells an agent how to interpret gaps rather than treating missing flags as safe. It omits rate limits, latency, and the score's numeric range, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 body is dense and front-loaded, but the opening phrase 'Free, public, no signup — Free, public, no signup' is a duplicated fragment that wastes the most prominent position. One cleanup would move this to a 5, since every other clause earns its place.

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 is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must explain both safety and return semantics — and it does, covering null handling, raw-data inclusion, and the no-signup access model. What is missing for a risk-scoring tool is the score's scale/direction and any note on caching or freshness of the on-chain data.

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 100%, with both parameters (chain, address) documented including the accepted chain list and EVM chain_id fallback. The description adds nothing about parameter format or constraints, so this is the baseline 3 case where the schema does all the work.

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 names a specific resource (a token contract's risk profile) and enumerates exactly what it aggregates — honeypot, mint/ownership authority, holder/LP concentration, taxes, trust-list status — into one score, which is far more informative than the title alone. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings, but no sibling tool overlaps this domain, so differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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?

Usage is implied: an agent infers this is the tool for assessing a token contract's on-chain risk before trading or integrating it. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no when-not-to-use, and no named alternative for related questions (e.g. price or liquidity tools). The 'free, public, no signup' note lowers the cost of calling it but is not usage guidance.

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