Portfolio rug scan for a Solana wallet

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description fully discloses the behavior: reads holdings, performs scans, limits to 10 positions, returns risk summary, and costs $0.05. Lacks details on rate limits or return format, but sufficient for a read-only scan 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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: action, audience, cost. No wasted words, front-loaded with key information.

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 a single parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers essential aspects: input, process, limit, output summary, and cost. Missing explicit return format details but still comprehensive enough for an agent.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add significant new meaning beyond the parameter's schema description (which already states 'Solana wallet address (base58)').

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?

Clearly states the action: read a Solana wallet's SPL holdings and run honeypot/rug scans on each (up to 10 positions). Returns per-token risk and a summary. Distinct from sibling tools by focusing on wallet-level scan with a positional limit.

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 targets portfolio-manager and risk agents auditing exposure. Notes the cost ($0.05). While it doesn't explicitly list alternatives, the sibling tool names and context imply when to use this vs individual token scans.

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