Analyze token risk

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

Annotations already declare the safe-read profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, openWorld), so that burden is lifted. The description adds real behavioral substance by explaining the analytical method – top1/top10/HHI concentration with program-owned pools separated from real holders – which tells the agent the metric is pool-adjusted and not a naive headline number. It stops short of stating rate limits, whether scores are cached, or how flags are worded.

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 dense sentence with the purpose front-loaded before the enumerated checks, so nothing needs scanning. The middle section is a long list, but each item is a distinct analysis dimension rather than filler, so it is appropriately sized for a tool with no output schema.

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 output schema, the description must convey what comes back, and it does: the listed metrics plus a 0-100 risk score and explicit flags. That is enough for an agent to know what it will receive. The remaining gap is the undocumented 'holders' parameter, which leaves input semantics incomplete.

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 50%: 'mint' is documented as a Base58 Solana address, but 'holders' (integer, min 1, max 20, default 20) has no description anywhere, and the description never mentions it. Given the low coverage, the description should have explained what this bounded parameter controls (e.g. depth of the holder-concentration sample), and it does not.

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 verb (screen) and resource (SPL mint) and enumerates exactly what is checked: authorities, metadata mutability, supply/FDV, holder concentration, plus a risk score and flags. An agent can distinguish it from the raw-data siblings like get_token_holders or get_assets without opening any schema, since this is the only tool described as producing an analytical risk verdict.

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 phrase 'Rug-pull and manipulation screen' implies the use case (due diligence on a mint before interacting), but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative for simpler lookups such as get_token_holders. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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