Check Token Smart Contract Security & Honeypot Status

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, but the description adds useful operational context: fail-closed auditing, the provider, detected risk categories, and the free-call/payment model. It could say more about rate limiting or error behavior, but the added cost and auth context is meaningful.

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 front-loaded with purpose and risk coverage, then follows with payment terms. It is appropriately sized, though the second sentence is somewhat dense and includes pricing detail that could be separated or trimmed.

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, the description helpfully lists what the audit detects, giving the agent a sense of expected result categories. It does not describe the exact response shape, but it provides enough context to call the tool correctly for a read-only audit.

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%, so address, network enum, and paymentProof are already well documented in the schema. The description reinforces supported chains and payment mechanics but does not add syntax or semantics beyond the structured fields.

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 states a specific verb and resource: a smart contract security and anti-honeypot audit via GoPlus across six named chains. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling alpha/payment tools by focusing on honeypot detection, taxes, mint authority, blacklists, and backdoors.

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 context for use is clear: an agent should call this when it needs token contract security due diligence, especially honeypot or tax risk. However, it does not explicitly compare against alternatives such as get_token_alpha or state 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.