check_token_safety

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, potential failure modes, data sources, or output format. It only lists the security dimensions checked, without explaining behavior or limitations.

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 terse sentence with a list, front-loading the purpose. It is concise and free of fluff, though it uses jargon ('Rug-gate') without explanation.

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?

With no output schema and no parameter documentation, the description leaves critical gaps: what input must be provided, what the tool returns (score, boolean, detailed report), and how to interpret results. It provides a checklist but not enough for reliable automated invocation.

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 has only a free-form 'args' object with no descriptions or structure. The description does not explain how to specify the token (address, symbol, network) or provide any parameter guidance. Coverage is 0%, and the description fails to compensate.

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 ('Rug-gate a token') and enumerates specific checks (honeypot, mint/freeze authority, liquidity lock, holder concentration), distinguishing it from sibling tools focused on quotes, finding gems, or swaps. It is a specific verb-action on the resource 'token' with measurable criteria.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It implies a safety assessment but does not state prerequisites, when to prefer it over get_token_info or find_gems, or 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.