get_token_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the most consequential trait: this is a paid call costing 0.08 USDC settled via x402. It also previews the output shape (a verdict plus bundled data sources). It does not say whether payment is automatic on invocation or whether a failed/invalid mint still incurs the charge, which is the main remaining gap.

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 definition is front-loaded and short, leading with the resource and value proposition. It loses a point for stating the price twice — once parenthetically ('— 0.08 USDC') and again as 'Cost: 0.08 USDC via x402' — which is pure redundancy in a three-sentence description.

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 one simple parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description supplies what an agent needs: what the report contains, the verdict format, and the payment requirement. Only the payment execution mechanics and failure/refund behavior are left unstated, which is a modest gap for a single-parameter read 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?

There is a single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage; the schema already explains that 'mint' is a base58 SPL / Token-2022 mint address. The description adds no further semantics such as accepted formats, chain constraints, or examples, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific resource and output: a Solana token due-diligence report with a pass/caution/avoid verdict. By enumerating the bundled components (rug check, Jupiter price/changes, DexScreener market data, socials) it implicitly distinguishes itself from the narrower siblings get_rugcheck and get_price, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 phrase 'One-call due diligence' hints at the use case: fetch everything at once instead of several narrow calls. However, there is no explicit when-not guidance — nothing tells the agent to prefer the cheaper get_rugcheck alone when a full report is unnecessary, and no mention of what to do if the paid call fails.

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