token_safety_screen

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool verifies sell-back ability, measures round-trip costs, checks ownership renunciation, returns a single risk verdict, and is on-chain only with no oracle or trust in token claims. This is robust behavioral disclosure.

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, and each sentence adds substantive value: what it checks, the details of the checks, the output, and the method. There is no redundancy or fluff.

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 a single-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is largely complete: it explains what it does, the input, and the output concept. A minor gap is lack of differentiation from sibling tool token_risk_snapshot, but overall the agent has enough context to select and invoke the tool.

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 already documents the 'token' parameter as 'ERC-20 token address on Base' with 100% coverage. The description reinforces the parameter's role but adds no additional semantic 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?

The description clearly states it is a 'pre-trade safety screen for an ERC-20 on Base' and enumerates specific checks (honeypot detection, round-trip cost, ownership renounced). This verb+resource+scope formulation distinctly separates it from sibling tools like quote_swap or approval_risk.

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 provides clear context for when to use: the 'is this safe to buy/approve BEFORE I sign' check. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion criteria, so it stops 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.