hyre-token-verdict

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds value by disclosing the cost ($0.015) and the specific scope of the verdict (holders, snipers, bonding curve, risk assessment), which helps set expectations. It doesn't explicitly state it's a read-only operation, but the analytical nature of a 'verdict' implies no 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the tool's purpose, key content areas, and cost without any fluff. Every word contributes meaning, making it exceptionally concise and 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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description must convey what the agent can expect in return. It lists the verdict's components but doesn't specify the return format (e.g., single score, text report, structured data) or any potential errors. While adequate for a simple one-parameter tool, it leaves room for more detail about the output.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for the single 'mint' parameter, clearly defining it as a Solana token mint address. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 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 it provides a 'Full AI verdict' on a token, listing specific components: holders, snipers, bonding curve, and risk assessment. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on individual aspects, making its purpose unambiguous and specific.

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 this is the comprehensive tool for a full token assessment, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use it over specialized siblings like hyre-token-snipers or hyre-bonding-curve. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, so usage guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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