Check Solana token risk

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses the free-tier limit and auth path ('5 free MCP calls/day, no signup. Then email key or x402'). It also implies a read-only data check via 'Returns', though it doesn't explicitly state the absence of 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 core behavior is front-loaded in one dense sentence, followed by a one-line usage instruction and a rate-limit note. The final fragment 'Then email key or x402' is cryptic but concise overall.

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?

In the absence of an output schema, the description enumerates all major output categories and the usage timing, plus rate-limit/auth context. The ambiguity of 'email key or x402' and the lack of explicit read-only confirmation are minor gaps.

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 description coverage is 100% and already documents the mint parameter as 'The Solana token mint address to check'. The description adds only the 'single Solana token mint' cardinality, which is useful but not a substantive semantic addition.

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 concrete verb ('Returns') and enumerates specific data categories (0-100 safety score, insider clusters, authority status, holder concentration, price/liquidity/volume) for a single Solana token mint. The word 'single' differentiates it from the sibling check_token_risk_batch.

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?

Explicitly instructs 'Use before recommending or executing a trade on any Solana token', providing a clear trigger context. It does not mention sibling alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the single-token scope gives adequate guidance.

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