cryptoguard_validate_trade

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, and the description adds a concrete behavioral model: five named checks and a tri-state verdict. It also implies no state mutation by focusing on pre-execution validation. No contradiction with annotations found.

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 two concise sentences plus a one-line example, with the core purpose stated first. It lists the five checks efficiently and the example illustrates usage without redundancy. Every word contributes informational value.

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 five parameters and no output schema, the description gives enough context to select and invoke it correctly: it explains the verdict output, the checks performed, and the accepted token formats from the schema. It could be slightly stronger by noting that certain parameters like pair_address are conditionally used for one of the five checks, but the overall picture 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 input schema provides 100% parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a concrete example ('buying $500 of PEPE') that maps token and amount_usd, but it doesn't explain parameter-specific formats or dependencies (e.g., that pair_address is needed for the rug pull check) beyond the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Validate') and resource ('a crypto trade'), immediately distinguishing this as a pre-execution validation tool. It enumerates the five checks and names the output verdict (PROCEED/CAUTION/BLOCK), clearly differentiating it from the rug_check sibling and signaling that this is the comprehensive trade validation tool.

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 instruction to 'validate BEFORE execution' gives clear usage context, and the example ('before executing') reinforces the intended timing. However, it doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives like rug_check for specialized checks or mention validate_trade_plus for potentially deeper validation, so it stops short of a full when/when-not guide.

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