token_due_diligence

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, but the description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: the call costs $0.10 USDC, it fans out to three named third-party providers, and it returns a letter grade rather than raw data. It does not discuss latency, failure modes when a provider is down, or what happens on an unknown token, so it stops short of a 5.

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 tightly packed sentences with the value proposition, cost, and the three component signals front-loaded and zero filler. Every clause conveys information an agent does not already have from structured fields.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully hints at the return shape (composite A-F grade) and discloses the payment requirement, which an agent needs before calling. It does not describe the full payload (component scores, raw audit fields), leaving a minor gap.

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 'query' and 'chain' are already documented in the schema, including the accepted token-symbol/contract-address formats and the default chain. The description adds nothing about parameter behavior, 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 concrete verb+resource ('Token Due Diligence Report') and enumerates the three specific data sources it fuses: GoPlus honeypot/tax audit, DexScreener order flow and liquidity, and Reddit/HN sentiment. It does not explicitly contrast itself with overlapping siblings like security_audit or token_alpha, which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.

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 never says when to reach for this composite tool instead of the narrower security_audit or token_alpha siblings, nor does it give any precondition or exclusion. The only context offered is the price, which is not usage guidance.

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