token_risk

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the risk score and flags are computed live from Base, and lists the specific flags (ERC-20 conformance, ownership renounce, upgradeable proxy). It implies a read-only operation without destructive effects, which is adequate for a risk assessment tool.

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?

The description is two sentences with zero wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the action and key outputs, and the second sentence adds the audience and context. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description adequately covers the input (address) and output (risk score + flags). It mentions the key flags but does not specify the output format or how the score is presented. For a simple tool with one parameter, it is mostly complete but could briefly describe the return structure.

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 describes the only parameter 'address' as 'Token contract address' with 100% coverage. The description repeats this ('Pass a token contract address') without adding new syntax or format details, meeting the baseline but not exceeding it.

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 clearly states the tool takes a token contract address and returns a risk score and flags including ERC-20 conformance, ownership renounce, and upgradeable proxy. It specifies the live computation from Base and targets trading bots and agents for token vetting, effectively distinguishing it from siblings like 'secure_token'.

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 explicitly states the use case: vetting tokens before buying by obtaining a risk score and flags. It provides clear context but does not mention when not to use or suggest alternatives among siblings, which is a minor gap.

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