goplus_nft_security

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool detects but does not mention whether it is a read-only check, what kind of report it returns, or any limitations. The lack of this context is significant for a security-analysis tool.

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, efficient sentence with no fluff. It earns its place by giving a clear purpose, though it could be structured to include more actionable 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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must compensate by explaining what the tool returns and any caveats. It only mentions detection categories, leaving the agent without expectations for the response format or interpretation. Given the large sibling set, more context is needed to ensure correct selection and use.

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 schema description covers 100% of the parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra semantics beyond what the schema already provides (chainId and contractAddress). It also does not explain format requirements or additional context.

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 checks NFT collection security and specifies it detects fake collections and malicious contracts, making the resource and intent clear. It distinguishes itself from token-focused security tools by explicitly mentioning NFT collections, but does not explicitly differentiate from other NFT security siblings like goplus_rugpull_detection.

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. The sibling list includes many similar security and rug-pull detection tools, leaving the agent without a basis for selection. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative mentions.

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