get_risk_metrics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions a price ('Price: $0.40'), which is useful context about cost, but fails to describe other critical behaviors such as rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or whether the operation is read-only or has side effects. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose, followed by args, returns, and price in a structured format. Each sentence adds value without redundancy. The only minor issue is the inclusion of 'Price: $0.40' as a separate line, which could be integrated more smoothly, but overall it's efficient and well-organized.

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 that there's an output schema (which handles return values), no annotations, and low schema coverage, the description does an adequate job. It covers the purpose, parameters, returns, and cost, but lacks details on behavioral traits and usage context. For a tool with two parameters and no annotations, it's minimally complete but could be more informative about when and how to use it effectively.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by explaining that 'token_address' is a 'token contract address (0x...)' and 'chain' is a 'Blockchain network,' which clarifies the semantics beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't provide examples, format details, or constraints for these parameters, leaving some ambiguity. With two parameters and low schema coverage, this is a baseline adequate effort.

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's purpose: 'Get comprehensive risk metrics for a token.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('risk metrics for a token'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_wallet_risk_score' or 'get_credit_risk_score', which prevents a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_wallet_risk_score' or 'get_credit_risk_score' that might handle related risk assessments, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. The only implicit context is the mention of 'token' and 'blockchain network,' but this is insufficient for clear usage guidelines.

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