security.token_diagnostic

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden and does so well: it discloses that calls run in parallel, are one upstream round trip, produce a deduped union of risk_flags, copy fields unchanged, and return success/error envelopes. This gives the agent accurate expectations without requiring annotations.

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 well-organized into behavior, usage, args, and returns, with no wasted sentences. It front-loads the definition and then provides routing guidance and a clear Returns contract.

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?

For a bundling tool with no output schema, the description explains what is included, what is not covered, when to use alternatives, and both success and failure return envelopes. An agent can select and invoke this tool correctly from the description alone.

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 compensate; it does by explaining chain_id as an EVM chain id with an example (8453 for Base) and contract_address as a token contract in 0x... form. This is sufficient for a two-parameter tool, though it could add a bit more validation detail.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Bundles') and names the exact tools being combined, get_token_risk plus get_contract_health_audit, and clarifies what it does not do (no composite score/grade). This clearly distinguishes it from its siblings.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance: use when both honeypot/tax risk and LP lock/burn status are needed, and do NOT use it when only one is needed, naming the alternative single-tool calls. It also routes unlock/vesting risk to get_token_dump_risk, leaving no ambiguity.

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