check_cabal_risk

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

The description discloses all major behavioral traits: what it detects (cabal score, funding clusters, Jito-bundle, coordinated-dump, serial rug history, honeypot), the evidence returned, and rate limits (250 scans/month, no API key). No annotations exist, so the description fully carries the burden.

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 relatively long but well-structured: it opens with the core purpose, enumerates all detection components, and concludes with usage guidance. Every sentence adds value, though some redundancy exists (e.g., 'rug detection' and 'serial-rug deployer').

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 complexity of the tool (multiple detection types, no output schema), the description is extremely complete. It covers all detection mechanisms, the output verdict, evidence details, and practical usage context, ensuring an agent can select and invoke the tool appropriately.

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?

There is only one parameter ('mint') with full schema coverage (100%). The description adds an example address but no further semantic value beyond what the schema provides. This meets 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 purpose: real-time on-chain coordinated-wallet and rug detection for Solana token mints. It specifies the exact output (Exit-Liquidity Risk verdict, cabal score, detection details) and the target use case (pump.fun, PumpSwap, Raydium tokens).

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?

The description explicitly tells when to use the tool: 'before an agent buys a ... token to answer: are you the exit liquidity?' It also mentions the free tier (250 scans/month) but does not discuss when not to use or alternatives (though no siblings exist).

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