check_token_risk

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and provides substantive behavioral context: it uses GoPlus Security (free, no key) with an on-chain fallback, and the result is 'a warning for the caller to weigh, never a block.' This discloses data sources, auth requirements, and the advisory nature of the output. It does not mention rate limits or latency, so not a 5.

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 action and then the usage context, followed by implementation details and behavioral caveats. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words.

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 read-only advisory tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, data sources, fallback, and output nature ('a warning'). It does not describe the return structure beyond the warning nature or specify supported chains, leaving a small gap since no output schema exists.

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 documents both parameters well. The description adds nothing beyond what the schema provides about parameter syntax or semantics, making the baseline 3 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 states a specific verb (Assess) and resource (ERC-20 token) and enumerates the exact risk dimensions checked: honeypot, taxes, owner powers, verified source, holder concentration, DEX liquidity. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_token_info or simulate_transaction.

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?

It gives a clear usage context: 'before approving or swapping it.' This tells the agent when to invoke the tool. However, it does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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