solana-token-risk

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

No annotations provided, but the description fully explains the tool's behavior: it is a read-only scanner using Solana RPC and DexScreener, no API keys needed, and lists all output fields. It discloses data sources and that no authentication is required, which is transparent.

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?

Extremely concise: four sentences covering purpose, return fields, data sources, and usage context. Information is front-loaded and every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description explains all return fields (mint/freeze authority, holder concentration, etc.) and scoring. It covers data sources and lack of API keys. Missing details like rate limits or score calculation method, but still complete enough for agent use.

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 describes the single 'mint' parameter with 'Solana SPL token mint address (base58, 32–44 chars)'. The description repeats this information without adding further semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 due to high schema 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?

Description clearly states the tool is a 'Rug-pull and risk scanner for Solana SPL tokens' with specific verb 'scan' and resource 'token risk'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'evm-token-security' (EVM) and 'token-top-holders' (just holders) by focusing on Solana and composite risk.

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 says 'Useful for agents vetting a memecoin or new token before trading, swapping, or recommending', which indicates when to use. However, it does not mention when not to use or provide alternatives, though context with siblings implicitly differentiates.

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