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

No annotations, so the description must carry the load, and it does disclose a key behavioral trait: 0.001 USDC per call via x402, a paid tool. It does not describe the 402 challenge flow or failure modes, but the payment proof mechanics are documented in the schema.

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 action and purpose, with the pricing note appended. No wasted text.

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?

No output schema, so the description must imply return values, and it does so by stating the tool classifies accounts as wallet, contract, or token mint. The payment flow and response structure are only partially covered, leaving 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 coverage is 100%, so address, chain, and paymentProof are already fully documented. The description only implies that address format detection is automatic, adding marginal meaning beyond the schema; baseline 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?

States specific verbs and resources: detects address format (EVM/Solana) and checks on-chain whether it is a wallet, contract, or token mint. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like wallet_balance or token_audit, which fetch data rather than classify account type.

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 a clear use case — preventing agents from sending funds to the wrong kind of account — which implies when to call it before transfers. It does not name alternative tools or state exclusions, but the context is explicit.

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