Check a token

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value by disclosing the output taxonomy (ok, caution, avoid, unknown) with reasons, but stays silent on cost, rate limits, latency, or coverage gaps such as unsupported mints.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with what is inspected and followed by the return shape; nothing is padded. The 'Dexra token_deep_check:' branding prefix is minor overhead rather than useful information.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be spelled out, and the single param is fully documented in the schema. The only real gap for an agent deciding how to invoke it correctly is the absence of routing guidance versus the overlapping 'preflight' tool.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Solana token mint address (base58)'), so the schema does the work. The description does not reference the mint argument at all, which is acceptable but adds nothing beyond baseline.

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 Solana token mint) and enumerates what is inspected: holders, linked wallets, authorities, and Token-2022 extensions, plus the verdict taxonomy. It does not, however, distinguish this from the sibling 'preflight', which plausibly also evaluates a token before trading, so an agent must guess which one applies.

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 only implied: an agent can infer this is for vetting a token's safety before acting. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or statement of how it differs from 'preflight' or 'fresh_launches', which is the main ambiguity given the sibling set.

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