check_mev_exposure

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Analyze' implies a read-only operation (no transaction submission), which is a useful behavioral trait. It also discloses the scope of the analysis (sandwich attacks, frontrunning risk). However, it does not mention whether this simulates the transaction, returns a risk score, or has side effects, leaving gaps in transparency.

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, front-loaded sentence that concisely conveys the tool's purpose. Every word earns its place, with no filler or repetition. It efficiently captures the core action and risk types in a compact format.

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?

The description covers the what but not the how or the output. Since there is no output schema, the agent does not know what the tool returns (e.g., a risk score, vulnerability report, or boolean). For an MEV analysis tool with five parameters, more context about the result format would significantly improve completeness.

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 input schema has 100% coverage, with descriptions for 'to', 'data', 'value', 'network', and 'slippageTolerance'. The description adds no parameter-specific details beyond what the schema already provides. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline of 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 clearly states the tool 'Analyze a pending or proposed transaction for MEV exposure', with specific examples of 'sandwich attack, frontrunning risk'. This gives a specific verb (Analyze) and resource (pending/proposed transaction). While it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like get_mev_protection_info or simulate_transaction, the action and scope are distinct enough to understand its purpose.

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: when you have a transaction and want to check MEV risk, use this tool. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which alternatives to choose (e.g., get_mev_protection_info, send_private_transaction). The context is clear but lacks exclusion criteria or alternative recommendations.

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