token_scan

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

No annotations were provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool 'scores recent transfer patterns' and costs $0.03 on Base, but it does not explicitly state that it is a read-only operation or address potential side effects. The behavioral details are helpful but incomplete.

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 consists of just two sentences, with the first sentence covering purpose and detected patterns, and the second covering usage and cost. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant 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?

Given the lack of output schema and minimal parameters, the description provides a good overview of what the tool does and its cost. However, it does not describe the output format or how results are returned, which would improve completeness for agents.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds some context (e.g., 'Pass a contract address or well-known symbol' for the token parameter), but this is largely redundant with the schema. The cost detail for Base is extra but not essential for understanding parameters.

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 clearly states 'Anomaly scan for a single token' and specifies what it scores (large CEX flows, whale accumulation, token mints/burns), making the verb and resource unambiguous. It also distinguishes from siblings like address_scan (focuses on addresses) and anomaly_scan (likely broader) by emphasizing 'single token'.

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 description tells users to 'Pass a contract address or well-known symbol' and mentions cost, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like address_scan or whale_alerts. It lacks 'when not to use' guidance, leaving context implied rather than explicit.

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