Token honeypot / rug safety check (paid $0.02)

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It transparently discloses the paid nature ($0.02, x402 on Base), the challenge-and-settle behavior, the output type (normalized risk score with reasons), and a caveat that it is descriptive only, not a signal. It does not cover failure modes or rate limits, but given the complexity, this is solid disclosure.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: cost/payment, functionality, output details, caveat, and free alternative are all covered. It is front-loaded with the most important fact (PAID $0.02) and uses a structured list of risk factors. Slightly long but appropriately so for a multi-feature paid tool.

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 (paid, multi-chain, aggregated data source, no output schema), the description covers the key aspects: what it does, what it costs, how payment works, what it returns, and its limitations. It does not specify the exact response format, but that is not required since no output schema is provided and the risk score description gives adequate expectations.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning to the parameters themselves (address/chain are obvious), though it does contextualize x_payment by explaining the 402 challenge behavior. This does not significantly raise the score.

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: a multi-chain token honeypot/rug check aggregating GoPlus and honeypot.is into a 0-100 risk score with explainable reasons. It uses a specific verb ('check') and resource, and distinguishes from the sibling 'token_safety_free' by noting it is the paid version.

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 usage context: it is a paid tool, notes the free teaser alternative, and explains the payment flow ('Without payment returns the x402 challenge; pass x_payment to settle'). It also warns that it is not a buy/sell signal. However, it does not explicitly exclude other sibling tools (e.g., simulate, approvals) or provide comparison-based guidance.

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