check_rugpull_risk

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

With no annotations, the description fully bears the transparency burden. It details what the tool checks (verification, scam code patterns, ownership, upgradeability) and explicitly states it is heuristic and not a security audit. It also mentions the output is a 0-100 risk score, leaving no hidden behaviors.

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 concise yet comprehensive. It opens with a clear statement of purpose, then lists checks and caveats in a structured paragraph, followed by an explicit Args section. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter, output schema present), the description covers all necessary aspects: what it does, what it checks, what it returns, and a critical caveat. The output schema handles return format details, so the description is appropriately complete.

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 schema has 0% coverage (no descriptions for parameters), so the description must add meaning. It clearly explains the 'address' parameter as 'The 0x-prefixed contract address to screen,' adding the required prefix format and usage context far beyond the schema's bare type definition.

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 runs a heuristic rug-pull risk screen on a Base contract and returns a risk score. It lists specific checks (source verification, scam patterns, ownership, proxy/upgradeability), making the purpose unambiguous. It also effectively distinguishes from siblings like check_contract_verification and check_token_approvals.

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 clear usage context: it is a heuristic tool, not a security audit, and advises manual verification before financial decisions. While it does not explicitly state when to avoid using it, the caution and scope (Base contract) offer sufficient guidance. Sibling tools are different enough that confusion is unlikely.

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