get_security_risk_endpoints

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It implies a read operation ('Get') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as authentication needs, rate limits, pagination, or response format. The list of security topics adds context but not operational details.

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 but becomes verbose with a lengthy list of security topics. Sentences like 'Comprehensive security endpoints for token security analysis...' could be condensed or structured as bullet points for better clarity.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what the tool returns (e.g., endpoint list format, metadata) and operational constraints, which are critical for an agent to use it effectively.

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 has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately omits parameter details, maintaining focus on the tool's purpose without redundancy.

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: 'Get all endpoints in the "Security & Risk Analysis" category.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('endpoints'), and distinguishes from siblings by focusing on security endpoints. However, it could be more specific about what 'get' entails (e.g., list, retrieve details).

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions the category but doesn't compare to sibling tools like 'get_token_contract_endpoints' or 'get_nft_analytics_endpoints', leaving the agent to infer usage based on category alone.

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