scan_token

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world. The description adds context about using 6 agents and returning a consensus score, but does not disclose behavioral specifics like authentication requirements or rate limits, which are left to the schema. No contradiction.

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-loading the action and immediately stating the output. Every sentence is informative with no 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?

The tool has 5 parameters and no output schema. The description explains the output structure but does not mention parameter details like depth options or authentication methods, which are in the schema. While schema descriptions cover parameters, the description could be more complete for 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?

All parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage). The tool description does not provide additional parameter semantics beyond the schema descriptions. It hints at depth but does not elaborate.

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 comprehensive multi-agent risk scan, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_quick_score and check_rug_risk. It specifies the output includes consensus score, risk level, and agent-level findings.

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 states the tool is for 'safe trading decisions', implying usage when a full risk scan is needed, but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like get_quick_score or check_rug_risk. No when-not guidance is provided.

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