Solana token risk score (free)

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

Annotations already cover read-only and open-world, and the description adds real context beyond them: the output shape and scale, that it hits a hosted Rugsight API, that there is no cost, and an explicit 'not financial advice / automated data' caveat. It does not mention rate limits, latency, or behavior on an invalid or non-existent mint.

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?

A single dense paragraph that front-loads purpose and resource, then output shape, then cost, then disclaimer — every sentence carries information. The A-F grade plus 'verdict and risk flag codes' is slightly redundant phrasing but not wasteful.

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, so the description must describe returns, and it does: score range, grade scale, verdict, and the categories behind the flag codes (mint/freeze authority, Token-2022 extensions, holder concentration, liquidity). For a single-parameter read tool with annotations, the remaining gaps (error cases, rate limits) are minor.

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?

With a single required parameter at 100% schema coverage, the schema already defines 'mint' as a base58 Solana mint address. The description adds only that both SPL and Token-2022 mints are supported, which is a useful but modest increment over the schema.

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?

Specific verb ('quick rug-risk check') plus a precise resource scope (Solana SPL / Token-2022 token) and an enumeration of what comes back (0-100 score, A-F grade, verdict, risk flag codes). It does not name the sibling get_token_risk_report, so the quick-vs-full-report distinction must be inferred from the word 'quick' and the free-tier note.

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?

'Free, no payment needed' implies this is the cheap screening path versus the paid report sibling, but the description never states when to prefer get_token_risk_report or what extra depth it buys. Usage is implied only, with no explicit routing rule or exclusions.

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