deployer_check

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses payment model, server dependencies, error codes (402, 503), and cautions that raw contract count is not a rug verdict. Also explains the 'deep' flag behavior. This is comprehensive for a paid 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?

Description is somewhat dense but front-loaded with core purpose. Every sentence adds value, though some restructuring could improve readability. Still, it's concise enough for an AI agent.

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 no output schema, the description covers what the tool returns (reputation profile) and hints at additional results for 'deep'. It does not specify exact output format but provides enough context for expected behavior. Missing explicit return shape, but acceptable for a profiling tool.

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 clear descriptions for all 3 parameters. Description adds value by explaining the 'deep' flag's full effect, the supported chain, and the POST method for the token. No contradictions.

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 resolves and profiles the deployer of a Base token, including reputation metrics like age, balance, contracts shipped, and fresh wallet detection. It distinguishes from siblings like token_safety or address_safety by focusing solely on deployer reputation, not token-level safety.

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 mentions the tool is a paid x402 service, requires a wallet on the server, and returns 402/503 for payment/config issues. It implies usage for deployer reputation checks but does not explicitly compare with siblings or state when to use vs not.

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