vet_meme

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains the tool's behavior: it checks live liquidity and returns one of four outcomes (genuine, ambiguous, impersonation, thin). The term 'fail-closed' indicates a safety orientation. However, it does not explicitly state whether the tool is read-only or if it has any side effects.

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 very concise, using just three sentences to convey purpose, context, and possible outcomes. It is front-loaded with a clear question and effectively uses line breaks for readability.

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 (identifying real contracts among look-alikes) and the lack of an output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it explains the problem and lists the four possible outcomes. It covers the key aspects an agent needs to understand what the tool does and what results to expect.

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 input schema describes three parameters with partial descriptions (67% coverage). The description adds context by mentioning 'the address you passed', but does not explain how the parameters interact with the logic or provide additional details beyond the schema.

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 identify the real token contract behind a meme ticker among many look-alikes. It uses a specific verb ('vet') and resource ('meme token contracts'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on meme tokens with multiple look-alike contracts.

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 strongly implies when to use the tool: when dealing with meme symbols that have many look-alike contracts. It also hints at the risks ('buying the wrong one is a total loss'). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives among sibling tools.

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