defi_scan

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

Discloses cost ($0.03 USDC on Base) and return type (story label, anomaly score). However, with no annotations, it misses other behavioral traits like auth requirements, rate limits, or error handling.

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 covering purpose, usage, and cost. No wasted words; front-loaded with key 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?

No output schema, but description minimally explains returns. Lacks detail on 'story label' semantics or anomaly score range. Adequate for a simple 3-param tool but incomplete for full autonomy.

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%, so description adds little beyond schema. Restates protocol and mentions chain/window but doesn't provide additional meaning or format details.

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?

Clearly states it performs anomaly scans for DeFi protocols, listing specific contracts (Uniswap, Aave, etc.) and outputs (story label, anomaly score). Distinguishes from sibling tools like token_scan or nft_scan by focusing on DeFi lending/DEX flow anomalies.

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?

Provides input format (protocol name or address) and cost, but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance compared to sibling tools. No mention of prerequisites or alternatives.

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