Contract risk scan

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose a meaningful side effect/cost: the scan burns 5 SERA. It also lists the checks performed, which helps the agent anticipate the scan's scope. It does not describe the verdict format, but the key behavioral trait (cost/burn) is transparent.

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 dense sentences carry the entire value: the first enumerates what is checked and the second states the per-scan cost. There is no filler, repetition, or boilerplate.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the scan scope, the verdict, and the cost. It is slightly incomplete because it does not elaborate on what the overall verdict looks like (e.g., a boolean, score, or risk label), but the provided information is sufficient for an agent to decide when to invoke it and what to expect at a high level.

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 single parameter is already fully documented in the schema as 'Pair id, symbol, or address,' so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds little beyond restating that the scan is 'for a pair'; it provides no additional formatting, constraints, or alternative input examples.

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 is specific: it enumerates concrete risk checks (honeypot, mint authority, LP lock, deployer history, verified source, top-10 concentration) for a pair and states it produces an overall verdict. This clearly distinguishes seranox_risk_scan from siblings like seranox_get_pair or seranox_list_pairs, which are not risk-assessment tools.

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 use case is implied: run this tool when you need a risk assessment of a pair. However, there is no explicit statement about when to prefer this over alternatives, no exclusions, and no guidance on the cost implication beyond noting the fee.

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