token_risk_screen

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

The annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent, and the description adds substantial non-obvious behavior: the x402 payment model, the HTTP 402 challenge on unpaid calls, and the required retry with params._meta['x402/payment']. It also summarizes the verdict-style output, which is useful context not present in the annotations.

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?

Every sentence carries information: purpose and output list, batch size, pricing/payment, and retry behavior. The risk attributes are grouped in a colon-delimited list after the purpose, making the key content scannable regardless of the description's length.

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 paid, multi-chain tool with no output schema, the description covers chains, input limits, pricing, auth, payment retry, and the main output categories, and it explicitly mentions a final Verdict line. It could specify the verdict format more concretely, but it gives an agent enough to invoke the tool and interpret the high-level result.

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 100% and both token and chain are already described, including batch limit and chain inference, so the description mostly restates those details. Its only incremental parameter-related detail is the x402 payment key under params._meta, which is valuable but sits outside the schema properties; the high schema coverage makes the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 opens with 'Pre-trade risk screen' and names the exact resource (EVM token contract or Solana SPL mint), followed by a concrete list of outputs (honeypot/tax/owner flags, LP-lock state, holder concentration, liquidity depth, wash-trade signals, Verdict). This gives a specific verb+resource and leaves no ambiguity about what the tool evaluates.

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?

There are no sibling tools, so no explicit alternative routing is needed, but the description clearly frames when it applies: pre-trade screening, supported chains, a 5-token batch limit, and a paid-call caveat. It provides clear context while stopping short of explicit 'do not use for X' exclusions.

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