security.contract_health_audit

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It openly states the data source (GoPlus), the limitation of no fallback, that only GoPlus's numbers are included, and the exact success/failure return shapes. This provides strong transparency about real-world behavior and failure modes.

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?

Every sentence earns its place. The description front-loads the core purpose, then provides usage guidance, exclusions, and parameter/return details in a logical structure. Despite being longer than average, there is no fluff or repetition that dilutes value.

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 two required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers everything needed to invoke correctly: what the tool does, when to use it, what it cannot do, and the exact request/response contract. Thresholds for the liquidity_health categories are not specified, but they are not necessary for selecting or calling the tool.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must fully document parameters, and it does. chain_id is explained as an EVM chain id with a concrete example (8453 for Base), and contract_address is specified as a token contract address with the 0x... format. This adds real meaning well beyond the bare property titles.

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?

States a specific verb ('Audit') and resource ('LP lock/burn status for a token contract (GoPlus)'), names the exact outputs (lp_locked_pct, lp_burned_pct, liquidity_health categories), and explicitly differentiates from get_token_risk. This is unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools.

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?

Explicitly tells when to use the tool ('before trusting it'), what it complements ('get_token_risk (honeypot/tax/mint checks)'), and what it deliberately omits (qualitative suspicious-transaction judgment). It also explains the no-fallback behavior and why Honeypot.is cannot substitute, leaving no doubt about when this is appropriate.

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