token_scan

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the read-only nature (scan), 'best-effort' service, cost, and coverage notes. But it lacks details on rate limits, error handling, or how 'anomalies' are determined. This is adequate but not fully transparent.

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 is two sentences, front-loading purpose and input, then cost. Every sentence contributes meaningful information with no redundancy or fluff.

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 tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description gives purpose, input constraints, and output type ('source status plus coverage notes'). It lacks detailed behavior on scoring or anomaly detection but provides enough context for a minimally viable tool. More detail on return format would improve completeness.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no extra semantics beyond what the schema provides; it only reiterates that token accepts address or symbol. Cost info is context but not parameter-specific. No value added beyond schema.

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 the tool's function: 'Best-effort anomaly scan for a single token — scores recent transfer patterns for unusual activity and returns source status plus coverage notes.' It specifies the primary verb ('scan'), resource ('single token'), and outcome ('anomaly detection'), distinguishing it from siblings like address_scan or anomaly_scan.

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 provides explicit input guidance: 'Pass a contract address or well-known symbol.' It also mentions the default chain and cost. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings or when not to use it, which would elevate the score.

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