detect_honeypot

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure, but it only clarifies the token-level definition of a honeypot. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, whether it makes on-chain queries, whether it requires authentication, or what potential limitations it might have. The absence of any side-effect or response behavior leaves the agent with insufficient information.

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, compact sentence that delivers the essential meaning immediately. The parenthetical definition is valuable and not redundant. There is zero wasted wording, and the structure front-loads the key action and object.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should convey what the caller can expect as a result. It does not specify the return type, format, or how to interpret the outcome (e.g., boolean, risk score, detailed report). The tool is simple, but the absence of any response hint makes the description incomplete for an agent that needs to decide on next actions.

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 provides complete descriptions for both parameters (100% coverage), including network examples and the token address field. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema already conveys, so the baseline of 3 applies. It does slightly reinforce the purpose by tying the tokenAddress to the honeypot check, but no new semantics are introduced.

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's purpose: 'Check if a token is a honeypot' and defines a honeypot as 'can buy but not sell', which gives a precise, actionable meaning. The verb 'check' plus the resource 'token' is specific, but it doesn't contrast with adjacent security tools like analyze_token_security or goplus_token_security, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 about when to use this tool instead of alternatives. The description only states what it does, with no context, prerequisites, or exclusions. It does not mention that other security tools might be more comprehensive or that this is a quick screening check.

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