security_audit

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the external data sources (GoPlus & DexScreener) and the concrete risk classes evaluated, which tells the agent what kind of signal to expect. It omits rate limits, latency, and whether results are verdicts or raw provider data.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the tool's role and then the two supported target modes with their checks. No filler, no repetition of the title or annotations.

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?

For a read-only, idempotent audit tool with no output schema, the description covers inputs, data sources, and the risk dimensions being probed. It stops short of describing the shape of the result (risk score vs. raw fields vs. verdict), which an agent deciding whether this output is actionable would benefit from knowing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (target, chain enum with default 'base') are already fully documented in the schema. The description restates the '0x address OR https:// URL' duality without adding format, validation, or chain-selection nuance, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Audits') and two clearly bounded resources (0x contracts/tokens, web URLs), and enumerates exactly what is checked for each (honeypot, buy/sell tax, mintable risk, liquidity; phishing, drainers, prompt injection). This is easily separable from siblings like package_audit (packages) and domain_intel (domains).

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?

'Pre-flight security and scam radar for AI agents' frames the context of use (run before trusting/interacting with a target), and the two target types imply which mode applies. However, it never names an alternative tool or states a when-not condition, so routing vs. package_audit/domain_intel/web_extract is left to inference.

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