get_rug_score

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavior burden. It usefully discloses that the return is a probability score where lower means safer, but says nothing about whether the read is cached/live, latency, rate limits, or behavior on an unknown or invalid assetId.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the return semantics. No filler — every sentence conveys new information.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description does partially compensate by explaining that the result is a probability score where lower is safer. It stops short of stating the scale/range or what a null/failure result looks like, but for a simple one-parameter read tool it is nearly 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single assetId parameter is fully documented in 'policyId.assetNameHex' format. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (risk score for a Cardano native token) and clarifies the semantic meaning of the returned value. No sibling tool overlaps this function (all others are token search, pool, order, or swap operations), so disambiguation is inherent.

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?

Usage is implied by the purpose — an agent can infer you call this when assessing scam risk for a specific token. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid on-chain assetId), and no statement of when not to use it.

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