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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It reveals that the transaction is unsigned, includes a 2% fee, returns a build_id, and that the user's key never leaves their environment. This conveys that the tool builds rather than executes, and highlights the non-destructive nature.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every clause adds value—fee, unsigned, workflow, and security note. No wasted words.

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?

The description covers the high-level workflow but omits details about the input args, full return format, error handling, or any constraints. Given that the tool has no annotations and a vague schema, the description is under-specified for an agent to invoke it correctly with realistic swap parameters.

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?

The input schema has only an opaque 'args' object with no property definitions (0% coverage), and the description does not explain what the args should contain. There is no mention of token pairs, amounts, slippage, or any required properties, leaving the agent without the necessary parameter semantics.

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's specific function: 'Build an UNSIGNED swap transaction (2% fee baked in) + a build_id.' It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly linking to submit_swap and implying it is not the submission step.

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 a clear workflow: build the unsigned transaction, sign it locally, then call submit_swap with the same build_id. It also notes the API key requirement and the privacy benefit. It does not explicitly compare to alternative tools, but the workflow is unmistakably stated.

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

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, potential failure modes, data sources, or output format. It only lists the security dimensions checked, without explaining behavior or limitations.

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 a single terse sentence with a list, front-loading the purpose. It is concise and free of fluff, though it uses jargon ('Rug-gate') without explanation.

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 no output schema and no parameter documentation, the description leaves critical gaps: what input must be provided, what the tool returns (score, boolean, detailed report), and how to interpret results. It provides a checklist but not enough for reliable automated invocation.

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?

The input schema has only a free-form 'args' object with no descriptions or structure. The description does not explain how to specify the token (address, symbol, network) or provide any parameter guidance. Coverage is 0%, and the description fails to compensate.

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's function ('Rug-gate a token') and enumerates specific checks (honeypot, mint/freeze authority, liquidity lock, holder concentration), distinguishing it from sibling tools focused on quotes, finding gems, or swaps. It is a specific verb-action on the resource 'token' with measurable criteria.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It implies a safety assessment but does not state prerequisites, when to prefer it over get_token_info or find_gems, or when not to use it.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'rug-gated' implying a safety filter, but does not explain what this means, whether the operation is read-only, or what the response contains. The description is too terse to provide sufficient transparency.

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 very concise, using two short sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the primary purpose and the key parameter. However, it may be under-specified for a tool with no output schema or annotations.

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 no output schema or annotations, the description should provide richer context. It fails to explain the meaning of 'rug-gated', what fields are returned, or any additional parameters. The tool appears to be a discovery tool, but the description is too minimal to be complete.

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?

The description provides the parameter 'tab' with possible values 'new | trending | graduated', which adds meaning beyond the opaque schema (which only has an 'args' object). However, it does not clarify whether 'tab' is required, what default applies, or how to structure it within 'args'. This partially compensates for the 0% schema coverage.

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 identifies the tool as returning 'rug-gated new/trending tokens' and distinguishes it from siblings like list_tradeable_tokens by focusing on new/trending tokens with a safety filter. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'find' or 'list', making it slightly ambiguous.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The 'tab' parameter hints at filtering categories, but there is no explicit statement of use cases or exclusions. This leaves the agent without clear direction on when to select this tool over sibling tools.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that the quote includes a 2% fee and expected output, which are behavioral traits. However, it doesn't explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, whether the quote is binding, or any additional behavior beyond those mentioned. It provides some transparency but not full clarity.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys all essential info without waste. Every word adds value, making it appropriately concise.

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?

For a tool with a generic schema and no output schema, the description provides a solid understanding of what it does and what it returns (route, expected out, fee). It could elaborate on the output structure or whether it's a simulation, but given the moderate complexity, it's fairly complete.

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?

The schema is generic with an args object and zero coverage, so the description must compensate. It explicitly names inputMint, outputMint, and amount in base units, adding meaning to the parameters. However, it doesn't specify exact field names or structure for the nested object, leaving some ambiguity.

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 gets a swap quote, specifying the route, expected out, fee, and inputs (inputMint, outputMint, amount). It distinguishes from siblings like build_swap and submit_swap by focusing on the quoting phase of a swap.

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 implies this is used before executing a swap (getting a quote), but it does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like build_swap or submit_swap, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites. Usage context is implied but not explicit.

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

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 mentions 'Live' data but does not state whether the operation is read-only, requires authentication, or has any side effects. The output is partially described (price, liquidity, market cap) but no return structure or error behavior is disclosed.

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 a single, concise sentence that directly states the core value proposition. No redundant words or fluff; it earns its place.

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?

Despite the tool's simplicity, the description is insufficient given the lack of annotations and a non-informative schema. It does not explain the input structure, output format, or any constraints, and there is no output schema to fill the gap. An agent would struggle to invoke this tool correctly without additional context.

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?

The input schema is effectively useless (a free-form 'args' object with no property details) and schema description coverage is 0%. The description only says 'for a mint', implying a mint identifier is needed, but it does not specify the parameter name, format, or how to pass the value. This leaves the agent to infer the 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 accurately states the tool's purpose: it retrieves live price, liquidity, and market cap for a mint. The verb is implied by the name and the resource is a specific crypto asset (mint), clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like get_quote (swap pricing) or check_token_safety (security analysis).

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. While the purpose implies use when token market data is needed, no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance is given.

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

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries full burden. It only states what the result contains (every token swappable) but does not disclose pagination, output format, ordering, rate limits, or any behavioral details. This is a significant gap.

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?

While the description is short, it is under-specified rather than concise. The single sentence does not convey necessary information and wastes the opportunity to provide useful instructions.

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?

For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is critically underspecified. It does not explain the return value's structure, use cases, or relationship to sibling tools, making it inadequate for an agent to invoke correctly.

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?

The schema defines a single 'args' object with additionalProperties but no descriptions. The description provides no information about what arguments should be supplied, leaving the parameter semantics completely undocumented at 0% schema coverage.

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 'Every token swappable on the DEX' restates the tool's name using synonyms ('tradeable' vs 'swappable') without an explicit verb or action. It lacks a clear directive like 'list' or 'return', making it vague and only weakly differentiated from sibling tools such as get_token_info or find_gems.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description gives no indication of when to use this tool instead of get_quote, check_token_safety, find_gems, get_token_info, build_swap, or submit_swap.

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

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

The description reveals that an API key is required and states the return values (signature and confirmation status), which is helpful. However, with no annotations, it does not mention the irreversible nature of broadcasting, potential failure modes, or whether the operation is a write to the blockchain, leaving important behavioral traits undisclosed.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and includes the key requirement (API key) and return value. No wasted words or redundant 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 the generic schema and lack of output schema, the description provides a reasonable overview, covering the primary identifier, prerequisite, and return. However, it omits details about the args structure beyond build_id and any error conditions, making it not fully complete for a tool with a flexible schema.

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?

The input schema is a generic 'args' object with 0% coverage, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'build_id' as a key, but does not explain the expected structure of 'args' or any other possible parameters. The ambiguity is high, making it difficult for an agent to reliably construct valid input.

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 action ('Broadcast an already-signed swap transaction') with a specific resource (swap transaction) and key identifier (build_id). It distinguishes from sibling tools like build_swap, which would construct the transaction rather than submit it.

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 phrase 'already-signed' implies this tool is used after a swap has been built and signed, but it does not explicitly name the prerequisite tool (e.g., build_swap) nor provide exclusions. Still, the context is clear enough for an agent to infer when to use it.

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