Both tools assess token rug risk, so the underlying purpose overlaps, but the descriptions make the boundary clear: one is a free 0-100 score/grade snapshot, the other is a paid full report with holder and liquidity detail. An agent can reliably pick based on depth and payment willingness, though the near-identical names invite a quick double-check.

Both names follow the same get_token_risk_* snake_case verb_noun pattern with a shared prefix, making the pair read as a deliberate, predictable family. No mixing of conventions.

Two tools is on the thin side even for a narrow risk-scoring service; the surface is essentially one capability offered at two depths. It is defensible for a focused hosted API, but leaves little room for adjacent operations.

The core domain — token risk assessment — is covered at both summary and detailed levels, including flags, holders, liquidity, and pool age, so there are no dead ends for the primary workflow. Minor gaps exist: no batch/multi-token check, no historical or cached report retrieval, and no way to list or search tokens.