token_analyzer

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full transparency burden. It mentions that a risk score is returned, but it does not disclose whether the tool makes external calls, requires specific network access, handles edge cases like invalid addresses, or has any side effects.

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 a single, focused sentence that front-loads the action and lists key analysis criteria. It is appropriately sized for a simple one-parameter tool with no unnecessary words.

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?

The presence of an output schema covers the return structure, but the description still lacks usage context and parameter explanation. Given the security-related nature of the tool, more behavioral detail (e.g., mainnet support, dependency on external data sources) would improve completeness.

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 one parameter (address) with zero description coverage. The tool description does not mention the parameter at all, forcing the agent to rely on the parameter name and tool name to infer that 'address' is the token contract address. No format, network, or validation constraints are specified.

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's function: 'Analyze a token contract for honeypot risks, mint functions, ownership patterns.' It names specific analysis aspects and mentions a risk score return, making the purpose distinct from broader sibling tools like contract_audit.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as contract_audit. The description only states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage contexts without any explicit exclusions or comparisons.

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