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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden well: it discloses the degree-gate behavior (~50k edge-rows returns hop 1 only with frontier_truncated=true), the sanctioned-node marker/stop semantics, and that no auth is required. It stops short of describing return structure or rate/latency characteristics, but the key edge-case behavior is front-loaded.

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?

Front-loaded with the core operation in the first sentence, followed by scope disclaimers and the truncation edge case. Dense but each sentence carries information; the disclaimers are somewhat list-like but justified for a compliance-adjacent primitive.

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 an 8-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential operational realities: what the walk yields, the truncation gate, no-auth, and the single-chain caution around chain_id/chain_source/chains_with_data. A short note on the return shape would complete it.

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%, so every parameter including the richly documented chain field is already explained in the schema; baseline 3 applies. The description adds only light reinforcement, referencing the attributed-node stop option and sanctioned-node markers without new syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — a bounded walk over the indexed stablecoin settlement-flow graph from a wallet — and names its mechanics (payer<->recipient hops, value-weighted score, entity-aware keys). It clearly separates itself from siblings like get_address_risk and get_address_compliance by framing itself as an explainability primitive rather than a verdict.

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?

Gives clear when-not guidance by declaring what it is not (detector verdict, identity/control assertion, AML decision, legal advice), which implicitly routes verdict-seeking callers elsewhere. It also instructs the agent to read chains_with_data before concluding. It does not, however, name a specific sibling to use instead when the caller wants a risk score.

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