check_rug_risk

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

Annotations already declare it as a read-only, idempotent operation. The description adds valuable context on the specific checks performed and the output format (SAFE/CAUTION/DANGER), enhancing transparency beyond annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and each sentence contributes meaning. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 tool with good annotations and schema, the description provides the output format and a list of checks. It could mention chain support or error handling, but it is sufficiently complete for the agent to understand the tool's capabilities.

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 covers all parameters with descriptions, achieving 100% coverage. The description does not add new semantic information about parameters, but the schema is sufficient. Baseline 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 clearly states the tool performs a 'rug-pull-focused security scan' and lists specific checks (mint/freeze controls, etc.), differentiating it from siblings like scan_token or get_quick_score. The verb 'checks' and resource 'rug-pull risk' are precise.

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 implies use for rug-pull risk assessment but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like scan_token or get_quick_score. No guidance on prerequisites or exclusions is provided.

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