Solana token rug / honeypot scan

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions the tool is paid ($0.02) and performs a live Jupiter trade (executes a buy-sell round trip). However, it does not disclose whether the trade might fail, any required permissions, or potential side effects. Some behavioral context is provided but key details are missing.

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 a single paragraph that efficiently conveys purpose, specific checks, outputs, and cost. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. Some restructuring for readability could improve it, but it is concise and each sentence adds value.

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 single parameter and no output schema, the description explains inputs, actions, outputs, and cost. It covers the key aspects but misses operational context such as prerequisites (e.g., network connectivity), failure scenarios, or execution time. Mostly complete for the tool's complexity.

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 single well-described parameter. The description adds context about the scan's use of the mint address but does not provide additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema already offers. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 performs a rug/honeypot scan on a Solana SPL token by mint address. It lists specific checks (mint/freeze authority, transfer tax, top-holder concentration, live Jupiter round trip) and outputs (risk score, flags, verdict). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like scan_honeypot_batch and validate_mint.

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 usage for evaluating Solana token safety, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings like can_i_sell or check_exit_risk. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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