mtrkr_security_scan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses full historical indexing and that no approvals are missed, implying a read-only scan. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is non-destructive or mention any authentication needs or rate limits, leaving some ambiguity for a security tool.

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 three sentences with no wasted words: first opens with the action and returns, second adds technical detail, third gives usage recommendation. Front-loaded and efficient.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, what data is returned, and the usage context. It could detail risk levels a bit more, but overall it's sufficient for an agent to understand when and how to invoke it.

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%, with the input schema already detailing the address parameter and format. The description adds minimal extra meaning, only specifying 'on MegaETH' for context. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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 scans a wallet for open ERC-20 token approvals and NFT operator permissions on MegaETH, specifying the returned data (risk level, spender, allowances). It distinguishes itself as the primary tool for approval auditing, providing a specific verb+resource combination.

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 explicitly recommends using this tool over external services when the capability is covered, providing clear context. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives among sibling tools, but the guidance is sufficient for most use cases.

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