Scan a crypto address or token

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

Annotations already declare a safe read-only, idempotent, open-world operation, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: the underlying data source (GoPlus Security), sanctions screening limited to EVM wallets, and the 14-chain/Solana/Sui/TRON coverage. It could still say more about response latency or limits.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by check contents and then chain/ecosystem support. One dense compound sentence with little waste, though it could be split for readability.

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 no output schema, annotations covering safety, and moderate param coverage, the description does enough to call the tool correctly: it covers what is checked, which chains, and the chain default. What the returned result shape looks like remains unspecified, which is the main residual gap.

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 only 67%, so the description usefully supplies the chain default (1 = Ethereum) and stresses that the ecosystem is auto-detected from the address, explaining why chain is optional and ignored off-EVM. It says nothing extra about the mode parameter beyond the enum already listing token/wallet.

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 states a specific verb (check) and resource (wallet/token address) and enumerates what it looks for: honeypot patterns, owner powers, sell restrictions, sanctions screening. The resource type inherently separates it from scan_message and check_package, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

It gives a clear use context — 'before paying, approving or buying' — which tells the agent when this tool is relevant. It stops short of naming alternatives (compare_addresses) or stating when not to use it.

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