rug_powers

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

With no annotations provided, the description effectively discloses key behavioral traits: it merges a curated index with live trade simulation, explains that dangerous capabilities only count if someone can fire them, and states it never returns clean on simulation alone. This provides good transparency beyond schema.

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 moderately lengthy with multiple sentences, some of which are explanatory but not strictly necessary (e.g., analogy about scanners). It is structured with the main purpose front-loaded, but could be trimmed for efficiency.

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 tool's complexity and lack of output schema, the description does not explain return values or format. It mentions 'never returns clean on simulation alone' but is vague. For a tool assessing powers, the output structure is critical and missing.

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 50% (only 'chain' has description). The description does not add meaning beyond the schema for either parameter; it only indirectly references the address as 'the contract'. No additional guidance on format or constraints is given.

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 assesses what powers the deployer still holds over user funds, using specific verbs and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'vet_meme' by focusing on deployer powers and real-time risk evaluation.

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 implies usage for evaluating deployer powers but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives among siblings. It gives context about merging index and simulation but lacks clear guidance on when to choose this tool over others.

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