get_token_report

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. Description adds value by specifying output format (markdown) and key report elements (score, risk level, findings, recommendations). No contradictions.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and contents. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

With annotations and rich schema, description is mostly complete. It covers purpose and output content, but could mention authentication methods (api_key vs tx_signature) or that results are shareable. Slight miss given sibling tools context.

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 description coverage is 100%, so parameters are already documented well. The description does not add extra meaning beyond schema, only implicitly ties 'shareable markdown' to output but not to parameters.

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?

Description clearly states verb 'generate', resource 'shareable markdown report', and specific contents (score, risk level, security findings, recommendations). This differentiates it from siblings like 'get_quick_score' (just score) and 'check_rug_risk' (rug-specific).

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. Context like 'token analysis' is implicit but no mention of when to prefer 'get_quick_score' for speed or 'check_rug_risk' for focused risk assessment.

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