Scan a token

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive safety. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: the safety-score orientation ('risk.score as a SAFETY score where 100 is clean and low numbers are dangerous'), the rating label, and cost semantics ('one API unit on any chain'). This materially changes how the agent should interpret results and plan calls.

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 front-loaded with the core action, then adds usage guidance, score semantics, exclusions, and cost in a compact sequence. Every sentence carries distinct information and nothing is redundant or filler.

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 output schema exists, the description covers the non-obvious aspects: when to choose this tool, how to interpret risk.score, what it is not for, and API cost. Combined with the rich parameter schema and annotations, nothing critical is missing for an agent to correctly invoke this 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 description coverage is 100% and the schema already documents chain enum and address formats in detail. The description only restates 'Arguments: address and chain' without adding new parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Run a full DeFade scan on one token contract' and enumerates what is included (metadata, holder distribution, creator info, risk verdict). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by naming get_rug_score for the inverse question and listing exclusions like get_token_price and get_usage.

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?

It explicitly tells the agent to 'Start here for any "is this token safe", "is this a rug pull" or "should I buy this" question,' then gives precise when-not-to-use cases: single modules, price/market-cap queries, and quota checks, each with the alternative tool named.

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