Eagle Virtual USDT & USDC Blacklist Tracker

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world behavior, and the description adds meaningful context on top: the return payload is a verifiable dated record with issuer, chain, transaction and block, and no authentication is needed. What's missing is how an empty/no-match result is represented, which matters for a 'check whether' tool.

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 action and the return contents, and every sentence is informative. There is mild redundancy around the 'never a risk score, rating, or opinion' point, which is restated in emphasis rather than advancing new information.

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 one fully documented parameter, no output schema, and rich read-only annotations, the description carries the return-shape burden well by listing the fields an agent will get back. The one gap is negative-result semantics: it never says what is returned when an address has no recorded actions, which an agent needs to interpret 'clean' answers correctly.

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 address parameter already carries an unusually thorough description (chains supported, EVM case-handling rules, NEAR names, maxLength, examples). The tool description adds nothing about the parameter beyond that, so the schema is doing all the work — 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?

States a specific verb and scope: 'Check one wallet address against the record of stablecoin blacklistings, freezes and seizures,' and enumerates what comes back (issuer, chain, date, transaction, block). The single-address framing distinguishes it cleanly from the sibling list_freeze_events, which lists events rather than checking one address.

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 context for use (single address, no account required, covers USDT/USDC and every other coin in the record on every chain it checks) and explicitly rules out a competing interpretation by saying it never returns a risk score or opinion. It does not, however, name a sibling alternative or state when to prefer list_freeze_events or get_token_policy instead.

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

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds genuinely useful behavior: that blacklist/freeze rows rank by balance-at-restriction while seizure rows rank by balance-taken, and that scope changes which identifying fields appear. No auth, rate-limit, or pagination context is given.

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 purpose and ordering, then examples, filters, and the ranking/scope caveats. Five sentences with no filler; slightly long, but each clause carries distinct information.

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 a read-only, 5-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains row content (wallet, date, block, transaction for the recent scope; none for all_time). It does not enumerate the full returned field set (amount, coin, chain, kind), a minor gap.

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 real meaning on top of the schema by clarifying how the ranking quantity differs between blacklist/freeze and seizure, and by restating the scope-dependent output fields, but filter parameters themselves add little 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 resource (stablecoin blacklistings, freezes, seizures, releases) and a specific operation/ordering (ranked by amount, largest first), plus concrete questions it answers. It does not name the overlapping sibling (list_freeze_events) that an agent might otherwise choose, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 context for use via example questions ("what is the largest blacklist") and explains the available filters (coin, blockchain, kind) and the scope choice. It never states when NOT to use it or which sibling to prefer instead, so it lacks exclusions/alternatives.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: certain chains have records 'behind right now' and cannot be vouched for, and the `coins` array is a strictly smaller set than the claimed coverage. It stops short of describing pagination or the exact shape of the staleness signal.

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 what it returns, then the call-to-action, then the field-level distinctions. Every sentence carries information, though the single dense paragraph and the final run-on clause about issuer naming are slightly harder to parse than they need to be.

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 and no parameters, the description carries the full burden of explaining return content, and it names the key fields (chains_claimed, coins_covered, contracts_checked, companies_checked) plus the caveat about lagging chains. It does not fully specify the response structure, leaving some gaps an agent must discover at call time.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the schema has nothing to document and the baseline is 4. The description correctly spends no effort on parameter semantics.

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 resource (the coverage of the stablecoin blacklist/freeze record) and enumerates what it returns: covered blockchains and coins, the date of the most recent recorded event, and which chains are currently behind. It is clearly distinguishable from event-listing siblings like list_freeze_events because it is metadata about the record itself, not the events.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: call it to determine whether a chain or coin is in scope before relying on an answer, and to check whether any part of the record is lagging. It does not name an alternative or state when-not to use it, but no sibling competes for this purpose.

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

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: output is event signature + count + first/most recent dates, absence of records does not imply incapability, and no wallets are disclosed (a privacy boundary). That last point is genuinely informative for an agent deciding on 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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, but the middle clause is repetitive — 'does not report what a contract is capable of: contract capability inspection is not published yet, and this tool says so rather than inferring that a coin cannot freeze from an absence of records' restates the same caveat three ways in one sentence.

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?

Single optional parameter, no output schema, read-only tool: the description supplies the return content (event name, count, date range) and the key semantic caveat about absence of records, which is what an agent needs. The main omission is any explicit pointer to sibling tools for adjacent questions.

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 token parameter is fully documented in the schema (ticker examples, multi-issuer collision behavior, omit-for-all). The description adds only 'for a given coin', which duplicates the schema, so 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 resource and verb-like framing: per-coin record of restriction controls the issuer has actually used (blacklisting, freezing, balance-taking, lifting), plus the returned fields. It implicitly separates itself from list_freeze_events by scoping to per-issuer usage, but never names a sibling tool, so it falls short of full differentiation.

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 rather than stated: 'Reports what has happened, dated' tells the agent this is a historical-usage lookup, and 'contract capability inspection is not published yet' warns of a common misuse. But no alternative tool (e.g. list_freeze_events or get_address_status) is named for related questions, so the agent must infer routing.

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

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

Annotations already grant readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower. The description adds the crucial disclosure that output is aggregate counts and dates with no wallet addresses — a real expectation-setter beyond what the annotations say. It does not describe pagination or response shape, but for an aggregate tool that is minor.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose followed by concrete examples. Slightly long in the example list but every clause earns its place and nothing is redundant.

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?

Complete enough for a 4-parameter, no-required-argument read tool: the description conveys scope, breakdown options, and output character. Without an output schema, a sentence on response shape (counts + dates) is present, though not a full return-value description.

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 schema already documents all four parameters, including the limit semantics and enum values. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema; baseline 3 is correct.

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?

Starts with a specific verb+resource ('Counts of recorded stablecoin blacklistings, freezes and seizures') and names all four breakdown axes. The example questions concretize the scope and distinguish it from the sibling list_freeze_events, which returns event rows rather than aggregates.

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 three example questions make the usage context explicit, and 'Returns counts and dates only; no wallet addresses are returned' tells the agent when this tool is NOT the right choice versus an event-listing tool. It never names list_freeze_events directly, so routing is inferred rather than stated.

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

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

Beyond the annotations (which only cover read-only/idempotent/openWorld=false), it discloses that this is a published sample rather than the full corpus, that there is no pagination past it, and that month totals are public while the underlying events require a paid account — critical expectations an agent would otherwise get wrong.

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?

Dense and front-loaded with scope and returned fields before the filtering guidance and alternatives. Slightly long, but nearly every clause carries distinct information; no filler sentences.

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 compensates by naming the returned fields (wallet, coin, blockchain, date, block, transaction) and by disclosing the sample/pagination and paid-tier limitations. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 each parameter is already documented, but the description adds real semantics: filter combinations, the newest-first ordering, and the non-obvious behavior of month (returns totals only, events gated behind paid access). It does not repeat syntax already in 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+resource (published feed of stablecoin blacklist/freeze/seizure/release/sanctions events) and immediately distinguishes itself from siblings by naming get_address_status and get_token_statistics with their respective roles.

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?

Explicitly covers the default behavior (omit filters returns everything, newest first), the narrowing options, and two alternative tools with the conditions that select them. An agent can route correctly without opening another schema.

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