contract_risk

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states 'Read-only' and 'Paid per call in USDC on Base via x402,' and notes it does not run a trade simulation. This covers safety and cost. It also describes the return format (JSON with booleans plus owner/admin addresses). It does not disclose error behavior or rate limits, but for a read-only inspection tool this is sufficient, and nothing contradicts annotations.

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 multi-sentence but each sentence contributes: purpose, list of checks, usage guidance, return format, and payment/read-only note. It front-loads the primary action and scope, then adds context. It is not overly verbose; every clause earns its place, though it could be tightened slightly.

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, so the description must convey what the tool returns; it does ('Returns JSON with each power as a boolean plus the resolved owner and admin addresses'). It also covers payment and read-only nature. For a 2-parameter tool with no output schema, this is adequately complete, though it omits details like error handling or default chain nuances, which are minor.

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% – both 'chain' and 'address' have detailed descriptions including defaults, formats, and examples. The description adds minimal parameter-level value beyond the schema, such as clarifying the address is the token you are about to buy/approve/receive, which is usage context rather than semantic detail. Per the baseline, a 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Inspect') and resource ('what the team behind a token contract is able to do to holders') and enumerates concrete checks (verified-source, proxy/admin, ownership renounced, dangerous powers). It explicitly contrasts with tradeability, distinguishing it from the siblings token_safety and honeypot_check without needing to open their schemas.

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?

It gives a clear when-to-use directive: 'Use it when you want the governance and rug-vector picture rather than the tradeability verdict.' This implies when not to use it (when you need tradeability), and the sibling names are visible in context. However, it does not name alternatives explicitly or list exclusions beyond the tradeability distinction, so a slight gap remains.

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