Token safety — score band + top-line flags (FREE)

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

No annotations are provided, but the description states that this tool returns a real result without requiring a wallet, which sets expectations about side-effect-free usage. It describes the output as a score band plus honeypot/tax/privilege flags, giving a clear behavioral picture. It doesn't disclose rate limits or data freshness, but for a simple read-only query this is adequate.

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 two compact sentences, front-loaded with 'FREE' and immediately conveying purpose, key result fields, and the upgrade path. Every clause adds value, and there is no fluff or repetition of schema details.

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 tool has only two required parameters and no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining the return value. It does so at a high level (score band plus three flag categories) and directs users to token_safety for more detail, which is sufficient for a free-tier preview. It could be more precise about the exact flag values or limitations, but for the tool's simple scope it is 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?

Both parameters (address, chain) are fully described in the schema with examples and enum-like chain list, so schema coverage is 100%. The description references {address, chain} but adds no additional parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already documents. Therefore a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the tool as a free token safety check that returns a score band and top-line flags for honeypot/tax/privilege risks, specifying the required inputs. It distinguishes itself from the sibling token_safety by explicitly stating it is the free tier, with the full version offering a numeric breakdown.

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 indicates this is the free tier for quick safety flags, and explicitly points to token_safety for the full numeric breakdown, providing a clear upgrade path. It also states 'Real result, no wallet,' which clarifies that no wallet connection is needed. However, it doesn't enumerate specific scenarios where free vs paid should be chosen beyond the breakdown detail.

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