token_analyze

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it's a paid operation ('Costs 0.3 HBAR') and specifies the analysis scope. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, error conditions, or what 'deep analysis' entails beyond listed components.

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 extremely concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place: first sentence defines the action and scope, second sentence adds critical cost information without redundancy.

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 2-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate context about what the tool does and its cost. However, it lacks details about return format, error handling, or what the 'risk scoring' entails, leaving gaps in completeness for an analysis tool.

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 the schema already documents both parameters (api_key, token_id). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, maintaining the baseline score of 3 for adequate coverage through structured data alone.

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 performs 'Deep analysis of a Hedera token' with specific components listed (holder distribution, transfer velocity, liquidity, risk scoring). It distinguishes from siblings like token_monitor (monitoring) and token_price (price only) by focusing on comprehensive analysis.

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 implies usage for token analysis needs but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like token_monitor or token_price. It mentions the cost (0.3 HBAR), which provides some context about resource implications, but lacks explicit guidance on use cases or prerequisites.

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