token_safety

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the result is the most recent cached analysis and that the call costs $0.01 in USDC via x402. It does not mention rate limits, authentication requirements, or failure modes, but for a read-only safety lookup these are less critical.

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 tight and information-dense: it front-loads the purpose, lists the output categories, and adds the cached result and pricing details in separate sentences. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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?

For a one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what analysis is returned, what categories it includes, that it is cached, and how much it costs. It is complete enough to call correctly, though explicit differentiation from token_safety_history would make it stronger.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage and already documents the mint parameter with address format, character length, and the pump.fun suffix convention. The description adds no extra parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb-plus-resource pattern: 'Token safety analysis for a Solana mint' and enumerates concrete output aspects like wallet-network concentration and bundle detection. It is clear about what the tool returns, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with token_safety_history or other sibling tools.

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 context for use is implied: call this when you need token safety analysis for a Solana mint. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over token_safety_history, holder_analysis, or flagged_tokens. The cached-analysis note hints at a current-only view, but exclusions are not stated.

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