Token rug check (any chain)

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

With no annotations, the description fully explains the tool's behavior: it returns a verdict based on a set of checks per chain, and it has a cost. It implies read-only safety check. It could explicitly state that it does not modify state, but given the context of a 'safety check', the behavior is transparent enough.

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 two sentences plus a payment note. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and verdict. Could be slightly improved by structuring the chain checks as a list, but it remains concise and to the point.

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?

No output schema is provided, so the description should explain the return format. It mentions 'GO/CAUTION/DANGER verdict' but does not detail whether it includes structured data or just a string. It covers per-chain checks but lacks specifics on output details, making it moderately 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions; it mentions the token address and chain types but does not elaborate on formats or constraints beyond what the schema provides.

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 uses specific verbs ('safety check') and resource ('token'), and clearly states the outcome ('GO/CAUTION/DANGER verdict'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly listing covered chains and checks, making its purpose unequivocal.

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 explicitly states when to use ('before buying or swapping') and targets 'unfamiliar token, especially meme coins'. It also mentions it's a paid tool. However, it does not provide explicit when-not-to-use scenarios or compare directly to siblings like contract_safety, though the chain coverage implies usage.

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