check_cabal_risk

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes what the tool scans and returns, but does not disclose non-destructive nature, rate limits, or prerequisites. It adds value by listing platforms, but lacks full behavioral clarity.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the scanning action, and efficiently conveys purpose, output, and usage. No wasted words.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must explain return values, which it does clearly (cabal_score, risk level, etc.). It mentions compatible platforms. Lacks error handling or edge case info, but is sufficient for a simple single-parameter 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 100% with a clear description of the mintAddress parameter. The tool description repeats the need but adds no extra syntax or constraints beyond the schema. Baseline of 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?

The description clearly states the tool scans a Solana token mint for coordinated cabals, bundle buys, serial rug deployers, and dumps. It specifies the output (risk verdict) and use case, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 it signs a swap' to avoid becoming exit liquidity. While it does not mention when not to use it or alternatives, the context is clear given no sibling tools.

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