VerdictSwarm MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does this well by specifying the cost (0.05 USDC per call), authentication requirements (API key option), payment mechanism (tx_signature for USDC micropayment), and what the tool evaluates (mint/freeze controls, liquidity status, honeypot behavior, etc.). It also describes the return format (structured verdict with SAFE/CAUTION/DANGER).

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 efficiently structured with zero waste. It opens with the core purpose, lists what's evaluated, specifies cost and authentication, documents parameters with clear semantics, and describes the return format. Every sentence earns its place by adding essential information.

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 security assessment tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides excellent coverage of purpose, behavior, parameters, and return format. The only minor gap is that without an output schema, the description could provide slightly more detail about the 'structured verdict' format, though it does mention the key elements (SAFE/CAUTION/DANGER, risk factors, security checks).

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 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining all 4 parameters. It clarifies that 'token_address' is for assessment, 'chain' specifies the blockchain, 'api_key' enables authenticated access, and 'tx_signature' is specifically for Solana USDC micropayment. This adds crucial meaning beyond the bare 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Run a focused rug-pull risk assessment with high-signal security indicators.' It specifies the verb ('assess') and resource ('token'), and distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_quick_score' or 'scan_token' by emphasizing focused security evaluation rather than general scanning or reporting.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: for security assessment of tokens with specific risk indicators. It mentions cost implications and authentication options, which helps guide usage decisions. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools.

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