Solana token liquidity durability / rug-pull exposure

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

No annotations provided, so description must cover behavioral traits. It explains return value (score+verdict) and nature (durability signal). Does not discuss rate limits, auth, or side effects, but is upfront about paid nature.

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, front-loaded with key purpose, details, and limitations. No wasted words.

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 simplicity (1 param, no output schema, no nested objects), the description sufficiently covers what it does and returns. Could mention if results are cached or real-time, but not essential.

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?

Only one parameter 'mint' with schema description at 100% coverage. Description adds value by specifying it's a Solana SPL token mint address and providing an example (USDC), which aids correct invocation.

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?

Clear verb ('Assess'), specific resource ('Solana token liquidity'), and detailed what it checks (pools, depth, burned supply, authorities). Distinguishes from siblings like check_exit_risk and scan_honeypot by focusing on liquidity durability.

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?

States it's a durability signal, not a proof, and mentions paid cost ($0.02). Implies use for rug-pull assessment, but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use comparisons with siblings.

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