Solana token deployer reputation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool's behavior: it retrieves deployer info, computes a risk score, and flags risks. It also notes the tool is paid. However, it does not mention failure modes or limitations (e.g., invalid mint address).

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 three sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence establishes the main action, the second details the output, and the third notes the cost. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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 covers essential functionality and output. It explains what information is returned and what risks are flagged. Minor details about edge cases or error handling are missing, but overall it is adequate.

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 coverage is 100% with a clear description of the 'mint' parameter. The description adds context by mentioning 'creator wallet' and 'deployer still holds', but this does not significantly enhance understanding 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 specifically states it traces the deployer of a Solana token, including the creator wallet, holdings, and wallets' ages, and returns a risk score. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like scan_honeypot or check_exit_risk, which focus on other aspects.

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 implies the tool is for checking deployer reputation but does not explicitly state when to use it versus siblings like scan_wallet_risk or validate_mint. No guidance on when not to use or prerequisites is provided.

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