b20_authentic

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

The description discloses key behavioral traits: B20 tokens are precompiles with low bytecode, and genuine ones allow issuer freeze/burn. However, it lacks details like whether the tool returns a boolean or more info, and does not address side effects (none expected). Without annotations, this is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 detailed but longer than necessary. It front-loads the core question but includes explanatory asides ('As people learn...') that could be trimmed. Every sentence adds some value, but conciseness could be improved by focusing on the key distinction and behavior.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should cover return value, error conditions, and usage context. It omits what the tool returns (likely a boolean or object) and does not relate to sibling tools. It explains the domain but leaves the agent uncertain about integration.

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?

The schema lists 'chain' and 'address', but the description provides no explanation of these parameters. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to add meaning to the parameters. It should clarify the role of 'chain' (e.g., which Base network) and the format of 'address'.

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: to check if a Base-native B20 asset is genuine or an ordinary ERC-20. It explains the distinction and implications. However, it does not differentiate from siblings directly, though sibling names like 'rug_powers' and 'vet_meme' suggest different verification focuses.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it's for verifying B20 tokens, but siblings like 'vet_approach' or 'open_approvals' might also be relevant. Missing context on prerequisites or when not to use it.

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