dex_token_scanner_security_auditor

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It helpfully reveals the two upstream data sources and the specific checks performed, which implies a read-only audit rather than a mutation. However, it omits failure behavior (e.g., tokens or chains GoPlus does not support returning empty/unknown results), rate limits, and whether findings are per-pair or per-token aggregates.

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 zero filler, front-loaded with the verb and resource before the chain list and detection checks. It slightly overstuffs one sentence rather than splitting capability from usage, but nothing is wasted.

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?

For a 4-parameter, all-optional tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description explains what is scanned and what is detected but not what an audited pair record contains (field names, risk flags, unknown/missing handling). It is adequate to invoke, but the agent cannot anticipate the result shape or how to interpret a token with unscannable contract 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%, so every parameter already carries a documented meaning and default. The description only reinforces the chain list already present in the chainId enum-like documentation and adds no detail on how searchQuery accepts symbols versus contract/pair addresses, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb+resource ("Scan DEX tokens"), enumerates the five supported chains, names the underlying data sources (DexScreener, GoPlus), and lists the exact risks detected (honeypots, mint/freeze authority, buy/sell taxes, liquidity locks). This clearly separates it from siblings like multichain_wallet_aml_risk_screener (wallet-level AML) and crypto_orderbook_arbitrage_scanner (price arbitrage).

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no sibling is named as an alternative. The agent must infer the use case (pre-trade token due diligence) from the list of detected risks; nothing states the conditions under which this tool should be chosen over the AML or arbitrage scanners.

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