cryptoguard_rug_check

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, establishing safety. The description adds behavioral detail by specifying the six risk factors and the 0-100 scoring scale, which informs the agent what the tool will compute. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Two concise sentences: the first states the purpose and output details, the second gives a practical example. No wasted words, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 strong annotations, complete schema, and a description that names the six risk factors and scoring range, the tool is adequately specified for selection and invocation. The lack of an output schema is partially compensated by the description's reference to 0-100 scores, though exact return structure is not specified.

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%, with both 'chain' and 'pair_address' already described. The description's example ('new Solana pair') reinforces the parameters but does not add substantive new meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 purpose: 'Assess rug pull risk for a specific DEX trading pair.' It identifies the resource (DEX pair) and the specific action (rug risk assessment), and the list of six risk factors differentiates it from siblings like validate_trade or scan_token.

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 clear context: it is used to evaluate a DEX pair's rug pull risk, with an explicit example ('check if a new Solana pair is a potential rug pull'). It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the use case is sufficiently clear from the tool's focus.

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