Check token safety

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

Description adds the key behavioral fact that the tool 'costs an x402 toll' and specifies return values (verdict, risk score, findings). This goes beyond annotations, which already mark it as idempotent and non-destructive. No contradiction with readOnlyHint=false is present.

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 focused sentences: first states purpose and checks, second states outputs and cost. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant phrasing.

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 output schema exists and annotations are present, the description sufficiently covers purpose, key behaviors, returns, and cost. The tool is moderately complex but the description is complete enough for selection and invocation.

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?

Input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for both chain and token, including enum values and address format. The description does not add new parameter semantics, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb-resource pair: 'Token safety screen before trading,' and enumerates concrete checks (honeypot, rug-pull, freeze/mint authority, transfer hooks, sell tax, blacklists). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like build_swap or get_quote.

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 phrase 'before trading' gives clear context and implies it should be used as a pre-trade safety step. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the intended usage is evident.

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