evm-token-security

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It transparently describes the risk score range (0–100), labels (honeypot, hidden ownership, etc.), and chain coverage (40+). Does not mention third-party dependency (GoPlusLabs) explicitly, but overall adequate.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. First sentence states core purpose and output; second sentence adds use cases and sibling differentiation. 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?

With no annotations or output schema, description provides a complete overview: purpose, output, chain coverage, and usage scenarios. Lacks explicit mention of output format but sufficiently covers the tool's capabilities.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. Description adds value by specifying default chain (base), citing example address, and noting that chain can be name or numeric ID. Exceeds the baseline 3 for high coverage.

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?

Clearly states the tool detects honeypots, rug-pulls, and scams for EVM tokens, and returns a risk score with specific flags. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly naming solana-token-risk and market-intelligence as alternatives for different contexts.

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?

Explicitly advises use before trading unknown tokens, routing payments through new contracts, or validating DeFi protocol addresses. Also suggests pairing with related tools, providing clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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