token_security

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

Annotations already declare read-only/idempotent/openWorld, and the description adds genuinely new context: cost ('free'), auth ('no API key, nothing signed or spent'), data provenance ('live public data'), and failure behavior ('errors on unknown symbol or unreachable upstream'). This goes well beyond the structured hints.

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?

Front-loads the one-line purpose, then organizes guidelines, return fields, an example response, and cost/failure notes into scannable labeled blocks. No filler sentences; the example payload is high-value.

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 compensates by enumerating every returned field and giving a concrete example response, plus cost and error behavior. An agent has everything needed to decide and invoke correctly.

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 (contract_address, chain with enum and default) are fully documented by the schema. The description only restates the chain restriction ('Ethereum and BSC contracts only'), adding little format or syntax detail, so 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 ('scan') and resource ('token contract') with the exact risk classes covered (honeypot, rug pull, security risks). It is immediately distinguishable from siblings like token_price and orderbook_depth, which it explicitly disclaims.

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?

Provides explicit 'Use when' (checking a contract before trading/investing) and 'Not for' conditions, naming the alternative tools (orderbook_depth / token_price) for the excluded liquidity/price case, plus a native-coin exclusion and a chain limitation.

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