get_quick_score

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), the description adds valuable behavioral details: it is 'cached' and 'fast', returns specific data (score, band, metadata), and has a pricing model. These disclosures help the agent understand latency and cost implications.

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 long, immediately stating the core purpose and return values, followed by critical pricing info. No extraneous words, and the most important details are front-loaded.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (5 parameters, no output schema), the description adequately covers purpose, return values, caching behavior, and pricing. It could mention what 'risk band' values are, but the agent likely infers from context. Sibling tools exist but differentiation is implicit.

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%, so each parameter is already described in the input schema. The tool description does not add further parameter-level context (e.g., how to use api_key vs tx_signature). Baseline is 3 per guidelines for high schema coverage.

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 function: 'Fast cached token risk check' and specifies it returns a score, risk band, and metadata for quick pre-trade screening. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'check_rug_risk' or 'scan_token' which likely offer more detailed or different analyses.

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 context on when to use it ('quick pre-trade screening') and includes pricing details ('Free: 10 calls/day; paid calls: 0.02 USDC'), which helps an agent decide based on rate limits. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or give conditions to avoid.

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