Get Token Safety Score

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so behavior is clear. Description adds value by enumerating specific scam indicators checked, but does not disclose additional traits like rate limits or authentication needs, which annotations do not cover.

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?

Single sentence, 18 words, directly conveys the tool's purpose and key outputs (honeypot, tax, ownership, liquidity). No unnecessary information.

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 single parameter and presence of output schema, the description sufficiently covers the tool's functionality. It clearly states the domain (scam analysis) and scope, making it complete for an AI agent to understand invocation and expected results.

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?

Schema description for the 'address' parameter is complete (100% coverage). Description does not add further parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 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?

Description clearly states the tool analyzes a token for scam indicators, listing specific checks like honeypot detection, buy/sell tax, ownership, and liquidity score. This distinguishes it from siblings that focus on narrower aspects like get-honeypots or get-token-liquidity.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as check-address-risk or get-honeypots. The description implies comprehensive scam analysis but does not provide context for selection or exclusions.

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