token_report

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

The description discloses cost ($0.07 for full depth) and indicates that the full depth adds outcome path, live sellability, and wallet graph. The annotation already marks it read-only, so the description adds cost and content info without contradictions.

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 tight and informative, covering the tool's composition, cost, parameter depth, and use case in just a few sentences. No redundant words 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?

With an output schema present, the description need not explain return formats. It adequately covers the depth parameter and cost, and it clearly positions the tool relative to siblings. It could mention error scenarios or edge cases, but for a combined report tool this is sufficient.

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 description enriches the schema by explaining what each depth level returns: 'core: verdict, holders, identity' and 'full adds graph, price path, sellability.' This goes beyond the bare enum definition and clarifies the trade-off of using the full depth.

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 that this tool combines check_token, inspect_token, and token_identity into a single call, and it names the sibling tools it pulls from. The phrase 'use once a token is worth a real look' gives a concrete use case, making its purpose distinct from the individual tools.

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 explicitly mentions when to use it ('once a token is worth a real look') and notes it is 'cheaper than the parts,' which guides the agent toward using this composite when multiple pieces of token info are needed. It does not explicitly say when not to use it, but the context is clear enough compared to the sibling tools.

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