Solana exit-risk: can I get out, and at what cost?

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the tool is paid ($0.04), but does not state whether it is read-only, has side effects, requires authentication, or has rate limits. This lack of transparency is a significant gap for a paid 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 front-loaded with the core question and is information-dense. While slightly verbose, every sentence adds value. It avoids redundancy and is well-structured.

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 the tool's complexity (paid, multiple data sources, verdict output), the description explains inputs and the verdict levels. However, without an output schema, it lacks details on the response structure (e.g., additional data or errors). A bit more completeness would improve usability.

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 100%, so the description adds minimal value beyond the schema. It provides context about the token being for exit risk assessment but does not elaborate on the format or constraints of the mint parameter beyond the schema's own description.

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: answering if a Solana token can be exited and at what cost, using Birdeye signals and Jupiter exit-slippage. It distinguishes from siblings like 'can_i_sell' by mentioning specific data sources and a verdict, making its unique value clear.

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 indicates the tool is for exit-planning and trading agents, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools. No guidance on prerequisites or limitations is provided.

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