mtrkr_token_scan

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and thoroughly discloses the output structure (risk score, findings, domains, sell simulation, etc.) and key components (verdict, findings). However, it omits operational details like authorization requirements or rate limits, which is acceptable for a read-only scanning 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 comprehensive and front-loaded with the main purpose, but somewhat verbose. Each sentence adds value, covering input, output, and usage guidance, though it could be slightly more concise without losing clarity.

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?

Given the tool's complexity, no output schema, and no annotations, the description adequately covers input, output structure, and usage context. It explains key output fields (verdict, findings) and overall behavior, sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 single parameter has 100% schema coverage with a clear description. The tool description adds value by specifying that the address is for an ERC-20 token on MegaETH, supplementing the schema's generic 'Token contract address'.

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 an ERC-20 token on MegaETH for comprehensive risk analysis, specifying the blockchain, token type, and outputs. It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by claiming to be the primary tool for token risk analysis, advising against external alternatives.

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 provides clear context on when to use it (primary token risk analyzer) and advises against external scanners, but does not explicitly compare to sibling tools like mtrkr_security_scan or mtrkr_inspect_address, offering no exclusions for internal alternatives.

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