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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent annotations, the description adds meaningful behavior: the address is not stored, recovery phrases or private keys are refused without lookup, and it distinguishes 'read' chains from merely 'identified' chains. This is genuine disclosure not present in structured fields.

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 purpose, then elaborates on chain coverage and safety behavior. Dense but every clause carries information; only the nested parenthetical about chains is slightly heavy.

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, the description usefully narrates what an agent gets back (address classification, chain activity, delegation, token status, Bitcoin/Solana handling). Complete enough for the call, though return shape details are left implicit.

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% and the single 'address' parameter is already documented as 'A public address or ENS name.' The description reinforces the input types (Bitcoin, Solana accounts) but adds little syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides; 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?

States a specific verb (identifies) and resource (a public address or ENS name) and enumerates the exact outputs: wallet vs contract, active chains, EIP-7702 delegation, token identity. It is clearly separable from siblings like explain_transaction and search.

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?

Usage is implied by 'without being told what it is,' which frames the scenario, but no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives or exclusions are given relative to exit_cost, exit_index, explain_transaction, or search. Adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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