cryptoguard_rug_check

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

Annotations already cover key behavioral traits (read-only, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description adds value by detailing the six specific risk factors scored (liquidity depth, pair age, etc.) and providing an example. It does not contradict annotations, but it lacks additional context like rate limits or response format.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by specific risk factors and a practical example. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 tool's complexity (assessing multiple risk factors) and lack of output schema, the description is mostly complete—it explains what the tool does and the factors considered. However, it does not detail the output format (e.g., how scores are returned), which could be helpful for an agent. Annotations provide good behavioral coverage, compensating partially.

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%, with clear descriptions for both parameters ('chain' and 'pair_address'). The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, as it focuses on the tool's purpose and risk factors rather than parameter details. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.

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 specific action ('Assess rug pull risk') and resource ('for a specific DEX trading pair'), distinguishing it from siblings like health checks, token scans, searches, and trade validation. It provides concrete examples of the six risk factors being scored, making the purpose explicit and differentiated.

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 implies usage context through the example ('check if a new Solana pair is a potential rug pull'), suggesting it's for evaluating new or suspicious pairs. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'cryptoguard_scan_token' or 'cryptoguard_validate_trade', nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites.

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