Check risk for multiple Solana tokens at once

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It reveals critical behaviors: up to 25 mints per call, per-mint billing equivalent to check_token_risk, no bulk discount, and an all-or-nothing rejection policy when quota/credit cannot cover the full batch. This is rich, decision-relevant context.

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 with zero filler. The first sentence establishes the tool's purpose and relationship to check_token_risk; the second explains the all-or-nothing batch policy. Every phrase earns its place and the structure is front-loaded.

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?

For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers capacity limits, billing, and atomicity. It relies on the reference to check_token_risk for baseline return behavior, which is a reasonable shortcut given sibling context, but it does not explicitly describe the batch return format or ordering. This is a minor gap rather than a major omission.

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 input schema already fully describes the single 'mints' parameter with minItems, maxItems, and item description ('1-25 Solana token mint addresses'). The description adds batching and pricing context but does not enhance the parameter's intrinsic meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 checks risk for multiple Solana tokens at once, with a specific verb ('check') and resource ('risk for multiple Solana tokens'). It distinguishes itself from the sibling check_token_risk by explicitly noting the batch capability of up to 25 mints.

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 says 'Same as check_token_risk but for up to 25 mints in one call', which clearly indicates when to use this tool over the single-mint alternative. It also adds usage-relevant details about billing and quota, though it does not explicitly mention get_token_risk_history or list strict 'when not to use' conditions.

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