EVM & Move Smart Contract Honeypot, Tax & Reentrancy Auditor

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds operational traits an agent could not infer: 32 KB input ceiling, 60 RPM limit, demo-mode flag versus L402 payment of 45 sats, and HTTP 400 on invalid input. That is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot express.

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?

One dense paragraph, front-loaded with purpose and the sibling routing rule. The pricing/rate-limit clause is crammed into the same sentence and slightly blurs the scan, but no sentence is wasted.

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 two-parameter read tool with an output schema, rich annotations, and 100% schema coverage, nothing needed for correct invocation is missing: scope, exclusions, cost model, rate limit, and failure mode are all present.

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 baseline is 3; the description modestly adds value by restating the 'chain' default and the accepted forms of 'code_or_address' (source, ABI, or address), which clarifies that an address is valid input. It does not enumerate the enum values beyond the schema, so it stays a step short of full marks.

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?

Specific verb ('Statically audits') plus concrete resource ('Solidity, Vyper, or Move smart contract source code') and an enumerated threat list (honeypot transfer taxes, hidden mint backdoors, proxy upgrade traps, reentrancy). It also explicitly carves itself out from the sibling scan_solana_cpi_reentrancy, so an agent can disambiguate without opening schemas.

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?

States the trigger ('before deploying or interacting with a protocol') and names the exact alternative with the condition that selects it ('for scanning Solana Anchor/Rust programs... use scan_solana_cpi_reentrancy instead'). Both when-to-use and when-to-use-something-else are explicit.

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