token_safety

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses paid nature (x402), explains honeypot simulation as a gas-free eth_call, and mentions return format (0-100 score + risk flags) and 402 for unpaid requests.

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 informative yet reasonably concise for the complexity, with clear structure: purpose, checks, return, payment. Slightly long but every 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 complexity (multi-check, paid service) and no output schema, description covers purpose, checks, return format, payment requirement, chain, and technical details (eth_call). No obvious gaps.

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% (baseline 3). Description adds value by specifying that 'token' is an ERC-20 address on Base, that 'chain' defaults to 'base', and provides context about on-chain reads.

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?

Description clearly states it performs a rug/honeypot safety check for ERC-20 tokens on Base, listing specific checks (conformance, ownership, mint, liquidity, honeypot simulation). It distinguishes from sibling tools that cover other domains (chat, SEO, etc.).

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 says when to use (safety check for ERC-20 on Base) and mentions paid service. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or comparison to siblings, but context is clear and sufficient.

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