analyze_token_security

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the analysis intent and does not disclose methodology, read-only nature, network implications, rate limits, or output format.

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 a single sentence that states the purpose directly with no filler. It is efficient and front-loaded, though it could include more detail without becoming verbose.

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 complexity of security analysis and the large set of overlapping sibling tools, this one-sentence description is insufficient for an agent to select the tool correctly. It lacks information about what specific checks are performed, what output is returned, and how it differs from other security tools.

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 coverage is 100% as both network and tokenAddress have descriptive text in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a clear verb ('Analyze') and resource ('token contract') with a specific purpose ('security risks and red flags'). It is unambiguous but does not differentiate from numerous sibling security tools like detect_rug_pull_risk or goplus_token_security.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as analyze_contract_permissions or goplus_rugpull_detection. No exclusions, prerequisites, or context are mentioned.

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