Token safety check for any Solana token (free, optional paid depth)

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

Annotations only flag readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false; the description goes well beyond by disclosing the entire billing model (free tier, $0.01/$0.025/$0.02 price points) and the guarantee that no charge occurs when the paid answer adds nothing. It does not discuss rate limits or auth, but the cost/side-effect disclosure is exactly what the non-readOnly annotation implies and is well covered.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose and the free tier, then layers the depth options. Dense but every clause carries information; the mid-description parenthetical pricing and the trailing input sentence are slightly heavy but not wasteful.

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 exists, yet the description describes what comes back (authorities, top holders with named pools, venue, verdict word and reason, calibrated probabilities, flags) and covers all input forms and depth modes. An agent has enough to invoke and interpret it, with only sibling differentiation and auth expectations left unstated.

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 nonetheless adds real meaning beyond the enum values by spelling out what each depth buys, the prices, and the live-window condition, and by listing accepted token input forms (mint, pons 0x address, terminal link).

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Pre-trade safety check for one token') and outlines the payload (mint/freeze authority, largest holders, launch venue, verdict). It is distinguishable from generic siblings, though it never names the likely-overlapping alternatives (mint_risk_card, check_pumpfun_risk, verdict) that an agent browsing the sibling list would need to compare against.

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?

Gives clear conditions for each depth mode (auto for a live pump.fun launch, free to never pay, full for a risk card) and states that nothing is bought when the paid answer adds nothing. Missing explicit routing to sibling tools such as check_batch_risk for multi-token or check_watchlist_risk for portfolios.

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