suverse_token_check

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses cost ($0.05 USDC), payment flow (402 instructions without signature, paid response with signature), and the limitation that the elite-flow signal is often absent. It also clarifies the tool itself doesn't pay and the server doesn't hold keys.

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?

Three sentences front-loaded with purpose, followed by cost and a caveat. Every sentence carries useful information with no fluff or repetition.

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 paid API tool with no output schema, the description is comprehensive: it explains what the verdict includes, how payment works, and the limitations of the signal. No critical information is missing.

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 schema already documents both parameters thoroughly (token format, payment_signature mechanics). The description adds the behavioral context that without payment_signature, the tool returns price and 402 instructions, which helps interpret the optional parameter. This is a value-add beyond the schema.

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 explicitly states the tool answers whether a Solana token is sane to enter, with a verdict containing risk level and specific flags. It distinguishes from siblings like suverse_market_pulse by focusing on a specific token's safety and liquidity.

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 provides clear context for when to use (to evaluate a token before entry) and includes a caveat about the elite-flow signal being Solana-only and often zero. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.

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