token_analysis

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes the core functionality (security checks) and mentions the cost, which is crucial behavioral context. However, it lacks details about rate limits, authentication needs, response format, or potential side effects (e.g., whether analysis is cached or triggers alerts).

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 extremely concise and front-loaded: it immediately states the purpose, specific checks, and cost in just two sentences. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 (security analysis with financial cost) and lack of annotations/output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the core purpose and cost but misses details like response structure, error handling, or integration notes. For a paid tool with no structured output, more context on what to expect would be beneficial.

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 schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain format requirements for 'address' beyond '0x...' or clarify 'network' choices). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles parameter documentation.

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 specific action ('Security analysis') and resource ('ERC-20 token contract'), with explicit details about what it checks (honeypots, rug pulls, ownership issues, contract risks). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'check_token_tiers' or 'wallet_score' by focusing on comprehensive security analysis rather than tier classification or wallet scoring.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: for security analysis of ERC-20 tokens, including specific risk types. It mentions the cost ($0.10 USDC via x402), which helps determine appropriateness. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives among siblings (e.g., 'check_token_tiers' might be for different purposes).

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