Pre-trade token report (flagship)

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

Annotations already provide readOnly/openWorld/idempotent/non-destructive signals, and the description adds useful behavioral context beyond them: it shares one pool read, is cheaper and faster than three separate calls, and returns live honeypot/transfer-tax results. This helps the agent understand cost and freshness behavior without contradicting the annotations.

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 purpose, then spends each sentence on returns, supported chains, and routing alternatives. No sentence is wasted, and the length is justified by the tool's bundled nature.

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?

With output schema, annotations, and sibling context available, this description covers selection, invocation context, returned signal categories, and disambiguation from related tools. The agent has everything needed to decide when to call it and what to expect.

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 50%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented chain parameter. It does so by naming Base, Ethereum, and Arbitrum, and by framing the tool around an 'unfamiliar ERC-20' contract, which maps clearly to the address parameter. It does not add deep detail beyond the schema, but it gives enough contextual meaning for 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?

The description clearly identifies the tool as the pre-trade due-diligence call for unfamiliar ERC-20s, names the three bundled capabilities (token_depth, price_corroboration, honeypot_check), and lists the return categories. It is easy to distinguish from sibling tools because it explicitly frames itself as the combined alternative to them.

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?

It states exactly when to use the tool (pre-trade due diligence / rug check before swapping into an unfamiliar ERC-20), which chains are supported, and gives explicit alternatives: call the individual tool when only one signal is needed, and use redeem_spread for ERC-4626 vault shares. This is strong routing guidance.

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