check_token_safety

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the per-call cost ($0.01 USDC on Base), the supported chains, and that it returns both a risk score and price/liquidity data. It does not cover failure modes (unsupported token, payment failure) or rate limits, which is a minor gap.

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?

A single dense paragraph that front-loads the core action and chains, then moves to output, then to the `since` workflow, then cost. Every clause carries information, though the parenthetical reason list is slightly long for the value it adds.

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 exists, yet the description fully characterizes the return value (score, plain-language reasons, underlying facts, USD price and liquidity). Combined with cost and chain coverage, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning by explaining that `since` is a watch.fingerprint from an earlier check used to surface changes, clarifying the diff semantics beyond the bare schema text. `address` and `chain` semantics are already fully described in the schema.

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 ('Rug check') plus resource (a token) and enumerates the six supported chains and the delivered artifact (0-100 risk score with reasons). An agent knows exactly what the tool does without opening the schema.

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?

Gives clear contextual usage: it is the tool for rug-checking a token, and it explains the incremental workflow of passing a previous watch.fingerprint as `since` to see what changed. No siblings exist, so there are no alternatives to exclude, but there is also no guidance on 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.