Solana token full risk report (0.03 USDC, x402)

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

Beyond readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, the description discloses that each call costs 0.03 USDC, is paid via x402 on the hosted service, and requires a two-step payment handshake. That is meaningful behavioral context an agent needs before invoking it.

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 report contents are front-loaded and the payment flow follows in a compact sequence. The only minor boilerplate is 'Not financial advice', but overall the description is efficient.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by listing the report contents, including flag explanations and holder/liquidity metrics. The payment mechanics are also covered, though the exact response structure is not described.

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% for the single mint parameter, so the schema already documents the required input. The description adds no additional meaning about the mint parameter or its expected format, 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?

The description clearly states it returns a full Rugsight risk report and enumerates its contents (flag explanations, top-20 holders, liquidity, volume, pool age). It implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_token_risk_score via 'Full ... report', but does not name the sibling explicitly.

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?

It gives a clear payment invocation flow (call without payment, then retry with _meta['x402/payment']), which is important usage context. However, it never explicitly says when to choose this full report over the sibling get_token_risk_score, leaving that comparison implied rather than stated.

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