ucai_detect_rug_pull

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add the cost detail ('Price: $0.05 per analysis'), but it does not disclose what output the user receives, whether any side effects occur beyond the charge, or any handling of invalid inputs. This is minimal transparency for a paid 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 two short sentences: the purpose statement and the price. It is front-loaded with the core function, has no redundant information, and every word serves a purpose.

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 tool is simple (2 parameters, no output schema), but the description is bare-bones. It lacks any description of what the analysis returns, no differentiation from overlapping sibling tools, and no mention of network support beyond what the schema already provides. Adequate for basic understanding, but with clear gaps for an agent deciding among many similar 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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters adequately described ('The blockchain network to use' and 'Token contract address'). The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so it remains at the baseline of 3.

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 function: 'Analyze a token contract for rug pull indicators and honeypot detection.' It uses a specific verb ('Analyze') and resource ('token contract'), making the purpose clear. However, it does not differentiate from similar sibling tools like detect_rug_pull_risk or goplus_rugpull_detection, so it falls short of a 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, use cases, or contrast with sibling tools. It only states what it does and the price, leaving the agent without direction on selection.

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