detect_rug_pull_risk

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but offers minimal detail. It doesn't disclose what the analysis entails, what indicators are checked, whether it's read-only, or what the output format is. This is a sparse one-liner.

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, clear, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. It states the essential purpose efficiently.

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 purpose (security risk assessment) and the absence of an output schema, the description is too sparse. It doesn't explain the nature of the analysis, supported networks, or return value, leaving the agent with insufficient context to confidently select this tool among many security-related siblings.

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 covers both parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter information, but the schema already provides sufficient meaning.

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 verb ('Analyze'), the resource ('a token contract'), and the focus ('rug pull indicators and security risks'). It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like goplus_rugpull_detection or detect_honeypot, so it gets a 4 rather than 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool over alternative security analysis tools (e.g., goplus_rugpull_detection, detect_honeypot, analyze_token_security). There are no usage scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions mentioned.

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