cryptoguard_validate_trade

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies the 5 specific checks performed (peer anomaly scan, self-history comparison, rug pull risk assessment, CEX/DEX price cross-check, concentration risk analysis) and the three possible verdict outcomes (PROCEED, CAUTION, BLOCK). This gives the agent important information about what the tool actually does.

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?

Perfectly structured and concise. First sentence states the core purpose, second sentence explains the return value, third sentence lists the 5 checks performed, fourth sentence provides parameter guidance, and final sentence gives a concrete example. Every sentence earns its place with zero waste.

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?

For a tool with rich annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint) and 100% schema coverage, the description provides excellent context about what the tool actually does, the checks performed, and the verdict system. The only minor gap is the lack of output schema, but the description adequately explains the return values (PROCEED, CAUTION, BLOCK verdicts).

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%, so the schema already fully documents all 5 parameters. The description adds some context by mentioning 'Accepts token name, symbol, or contract address' which reinforces the token parameter flexibility, and the example shows usage with amount_usd. However, it doesn't add significant meaning beyond what's already in the comprehensive schema descriptions.

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 purpose: 'Validate a crypto trade BEFORE execution' with the verb 'validate' and resource 'crypto trade'. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on pre-execution validation rather than health checks, rug checks, scans, or searches mentioned in sibling 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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'BEFORE execution' and provides a concrete example ('validate buying $500 of PEPE before executing'). It implicitly distinguishes from alternatives by listing the 5 specific checks performed, which helps differentiate from sibling tools like cryptoguard_rug_check that might only do one type of check.

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