token_security

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: it performs a security scan, returns specific risk metrics, and includes pricing information ('$0.002 USDC per call'), which is valuable context not covered by annotations. However, it lacks details on rate limits, error handling, or authentication needs.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage guidelines, return values, and pricing in a structured, efficient manner. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it highly concise and well-organized.

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 a security scanning tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does well by stating the purpose, usage context, return values, and pricing. However, it could be more complete by explaining the meaning of return values (e.g., what risk_level ranges indicate) or error cases, which would help an agent interpret results better.

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 the schema already documents both parameters (chain and contract_address) with descriptions. The description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as format details or examples for the contract address. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles parameter documentation.

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 with a specific verb ('Scan') and resource ('any token contract'), and it distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on security analysis rather than price tracking, news, or other crypto functions. It explicitly lists the security risks it detects (honeypot, rug pull, and security risks).

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 includes an explicit 'Use when' section that specifies the context ('before trading or investing'), providing clear guidance on when to use this tool. It also implies alternatives by focusing on security checks, distinguishing it from sibling tools like token_price or wallet_balance that serve different purposes.

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