can_i_exit

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the tool is known to be safe. The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond annotations: it notes the cost per call, that quotes are only quotes (nothing is signed), that results are not cached, takes a few hundred milliseconds, and explains the verdict derivation (worst rung). This enriches the agent's understanding of latency, freshness, and non-transactional nature.

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 compact and front-loaded: it starts with the cost, states the core question, lists what is returned, then covers caveats and performance. Every sentence adds value, no filler, and the structure leads with the most decision-relevant 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, the description doesn't need to detail return structure. It covers the cost, verdict levels, round-trip detail, survival fraction, quote-only nature, non-caching, and latency. Nothing an agent needs to correctly invoke and interpret the tool is missing.

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?

The input schema documents the single parameter 'mint' with a clear description ('Solana token mint, base58.'), and schema description coverage is 100%. The tool description does not add any additional meaning or format details beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies—the schema carries the parameter documentation.

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 explicitly states a specific verb+resource: 'Can this token be sold RIGHT NOW' and what a round trip costs, including Jupiter routes and survival fraction. It lists verdict levels and clearly differentiates from sibling tools like check_token or token_report by focusing on immediate sellability and cost rather than general token info.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool—when assessing whether a token can be sold immediately and what the round-trip cost is. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the purpose is so singular that an agent can easily select it over siblings without further guidance.

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